LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Class 


THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT 
IN  JUDAISM 


The  Reform  Movement 
in  Judaism 


BY 

DAVID  PHILIPSON,   D.D. 
II 

AUTHOR  or  "THE  JEW  IN  ENGLISH  FICTION," 
**OLD  EUROPEAN  JEWRIES,"  ETC.,  ETC. 


»ork 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON  I     MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 

IQ07 

Ml  rights  reurved 


COPYRIGHT.  1907 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up.     Printed  from  type  April.  1907 


GENERAL 


THE   MASON-HENRY    PMESS 
SYRACUSE. N«W  YO*K 


PREFACE 

IN  October,  1897,  I  published  in  the  Jewish  Quarterly 
Review  an  article  entitled  "The  Progress  of  the  Jewish 
Reform  Movement  in  the  United  States."  This  article  was 
the  beginning  of  a  series  of  further  studies  on  the  reform 
movement  in  Judaism.  These  studies,  which  form  the 
chapters  of  this  book,  aim  to  present  a  connected  story  of 
the  progressive  movement  in  Judaism,  the  most  striking 
Jewish  religious  phenomenon  of  modern  times. 

It  has  been  possible  in  this  survey  to  take  account  only 
of  the  corporate  activities  which  translated  the  theories  of 
the  reformers  into  practice.  Many  statements  of  individ- 
ual scholars  and  writers,  however  interesting  as  contribu- 
tions to  the  store  of  liberal  Jewish  thought,  could  not  be 
included,  since  this  is  not  a  history  of  the  literary  output, 
but  of  the  practical  achievements  of  reform.  This  point 
can  be  well  illustrated  by  adverting  to  the  case  of  Russia. 
There  a  number  of  prominent  writers  have  pleaded  strong- 
ly for  reforms  in  religious  practice  and  belief,  but  no  pub- 
lic official  steps  have  been  taken  towards  carrying  out  these 
reforms.  The  reform  movement  has  found  no  lodgment 
in  the  corporate  and  congregational  Jewish  life  of  Russia, 
hence  no  chapter  is  devoted  to  Russia  in  this  work,  how- 
ever illuminating  might  be  the  statements  that  can  be 
culled  from  the  writings  of  Russian  Jewish  authors. 

It  has  been  my  aim  to  present  as  objectively  as  possible 
the  purposes  and  accomplishments  of  the  reform  move- 
ment. We  are  still  too  near  the  beginning  of  the  move- 
ment to  take  account  of  ultimate  effects  and  results.  I 
have  therefore  refrained  from  all  theorizing  upon  this  as- 


vi  PEEFACE 

pect  of  the  subject,  but  have  permitted  the  facts  to  speak 
for  themselves. 

My  thanks  are  due  Mr.  Claude  G.  Montefiore,  editor  of 
the  Jewish  Quarterly  Review  for  the  permission  to  include 
within  this  volume  a  number  of  studies  which  have  appeared 
in  the  pages  of  that  magazine. 

DAVID  PHILIPSON. 

Cincinnati,  Ohio. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 
THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM    .          3 

CHAPTER   II 
THE   SECOND    GENERATION    OF   REFORMERS 57 

CHAPTER   III 
THE    GEIGER-TIKTIN    AFFAIR 72 

CHAPTER   IV 
THE    HAMBURG    TEMPLE   PRAYER-BOOK    CONTROVERSY    .    .    .      102 

CHAPTER   V 
REFORM    IN    ENGLAND       122 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  THE  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM  .  .  .  147 

CHAPTER  VH 

THE  RABBINICAL  CONFERENCES,  1844-6 197 

(a)  The    Brunswick    Conference 202 

(b)  The    Frankfort    Conference 231 

(c)  The    Breslau    Conference          272 

CHAPTER   VHI 

THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN 317 

CHAPTER   IX 

THE  BRESLAU   " FRIENDS  OF   REFORM" 369 

CHAPTER   X 

REFORM    IN    HUNGARY 379 

CHAPTER      IX 

THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS 398 

CHAPTER   XII 

REFORM    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES 461 

CHAPTER   XIII 

RECENT    DEVELOPMENTS    IN    EUROPE 512 

vii 


ABBREVIATIONS 


A.  Z.  d.  J. — Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  1837. 

G.  J.  E.  G.  B. — Holdheim,  Geschichte  der  Entwickelung  und  Entste- 
hung  der  jiidischen  Beformgemeinde  in  Berlin. 
Berlin,  1857. 

I.  N.  J. — Israelit  des  Neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  Vols.  I-IX,  1839- 
1848.  Edited  by  M.  Hess. 

J.  Q.  E. — Jewish  Quarterly  Review.  Edited  by  C.  G.  Montefiore 
and  Israel  Abrahams,  London,  1889. 

J.  Z.  W.  L. — Jiidische  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben. 
Edited  by  Abraham  Geiger,  1862-1875. 

W.  Z.  J.  T. — Wissenchaftliche  Zeitschrift  fur  Judische  Theologie. 
Edited  by  Abraham  Geiger,  1835-1848. 

Z.  D.  M.  G. — Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenlandischen  Gesell- 
schaft,  185. 


THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT 
IN  JUDAISM 


CHAPTER   I 

THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT 
IN  JUDAISM 

THE  Jew  has  always  been  susceptible  to  the  influences 
at  work  in  the  environment  in  which  he  has  chanced  to  be. 
His  mind  is  singularly  open  to  the  thought-waves  that 
permeate  his  intellectual  surroundings.  The  keen  inquirer 
can  learn  often  the  leading  cultural  motifs  of  the  various 
civilizations  in  whose  midst  the  Jew  has  dwelt  by  familiar- 
izing himself  with  the  remains  of  Jewish  literary  achieve- 
ment. From  early  times  this  has  been  the  case. *  The 
Bible  indicates  in  many  a  passage  the  proneness  of  the 
Israelites  to  adopt  the  customs  of  the  surrounding  peoples 
and  to  accept  their  view-points  of  religion  and  life. 2 
That  the  Babylonian  civilization  with  which  the  Jews 
came  into  contact  during  the  exile  and  after,  left  more  than 
a  passing  effect  there  can  be  little  doubt ; 3  the  feast  of 
Purim  may  be  instanced  as  a  striking  proof  of  this ;  Baby- 
lonian in  origin,  it  was  given  a  Jewish  dress  and  became 
incorporated  into  the  system  of  Jewish  observance.  4  Thus, 
too,  the  Persian  environment  in  which  the  Jews  found 
themselves  after  the  passing  of  the  Babylonian  empire  into 

1  Bousset.    Die    Religion    des    Judenthums    im    neutestamentlichen 
Zeitalter,  448-492.     Berlin,  1903. 

2  Num.  xxv.  3 ;  1  Sam.  viii.  5  ff. ;  1  Kings  xi.  7 ;  2  Kings  xxiii.  11 ; 
Amos  v.  26 ;  Hosea  iv.  12 ;  Jer,  vii.  18,  xliv.  17,  18,  19,  25. 

3  Stade,  Z.  A.  W.,  xxiii.  174  ff. 

4  Zimmern,  ' '  Zur  Frage  nach  dem  Ursprung  des  Purimf  estes, ' ' 
Z.  A.  W.,  XI,  157-169 ;  C.  H.  Toy,  ' '  Esther  as  a  Babylonian  Goddess, ' ' 
New  World,  VI.  130-145;  Bousset,  op.  cit.,  467. 

3 


4  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  power  of  Cyrus  and  his  successors  left  its  mark ; x  to 
mention  but  one  result  of  the  contact  with  Zoroastrian  be- 
liefs, it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  influence  of  the 
Persian  system  of  angelology  and  demonology  on  Jewish 
thought ; 2  the  so-called  Hellenistic  movement  among  the 
Jews  of  the  two  pre-Christian  centuries  is  indication  suffi- 
cient of  the  hospitality  afforded  to  Greek  thought ; 3  the 
writings  of  Philo  testify  to  the  welcome  which  was  accorded 
the  Alexandrinian  neo-Platonic  philosophy ;  in  the  Talmud4 
there  are  indications  that  Jews  were  influenced  by  customs 
and  thoughts  that  prevailed  among  their  neighbors;  traces 
of  neo-Persian  influence  are  not  wanting ; 5  the  Arabic  phil- 
osophical movement  is  reflected  in  the  pages  of  Saadia's 
Faith  and  Knowledge,  and  the  Aristotelian  revival  in 
Europe  through  the  Christian  scholiasts  finds  its  Jewish 
counterpart  in  the  Judeo-Spanish  mediaeval  philosophers; 
so  noticeable,  in  fact,  was  the  mirroring  of  the  life  and 
thought  of  the  surrounding  Christian  world  in  Jewry  that 
it  passed  into  a  popular  proverb  in  the  form  "wie  es  sich 
christelt,  jiidelt  es  sich ; ' '  the  reciprocal  influences  of  Chris- 
tian and  Jewish  life  6  were  so  pronounced  that  more  than 
one  church  council  issued  edicts  prohibiting  this.  All  this 

1  Erik  Stave,  TJeber  den  Einfluss  des  Parsismus  auf  das  Judenthum, 
Haarlem,  1898;  Bousset,  op.  cit.  473  ff.;  Geiger,  Jiidische  Zeitschrift 
fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  iv.  70  ff. 

2  A.  Kohut,  TJeber  die  judische  Angelologie  und  Damonologie  in 
ihrer  Abhangiglceit  vom  Parsismus.    Leipzig,  1866. 

8  M.  Friedlander,  Das  Judenthum  in  der  vorchristlichen  griechischen 
Welt,  Vienna,  1897;  also  in  J.  Q.  B.,  XIV,  268;  Bousset,  op.  cit.,  450. 

*Talm.  Bab.  Sotah  49  b;  Ab.  Zara  44  b;  Meg.  9  a,  18  a;  Bab.H 
Qamma  83  a.  Talm.  Jer.  Sotah  VII,  1;  Meg.  I,  11. 

5 1.  M.  Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums  und  seiner  SeTcten,  II,  143 ; 
A.  Kohut,  "Was  hat  die  Talmudische  Eschatologie  aus  dem  Parsis- 
mus aufgenommen?"  Z.  D.  M.  G.,  XXI,  552-591. 

6  M.  Gudemann,  Geschichte  des  Erziehungswesens  und  der  Cultur 
der  Juden  in  Deutschland  w'dhrend  des  XIV.  und  XV.  Jahrhunderts, 
158  ff.,  Vienna,  1882;  A.  Berliner,  Personliche  Beziehungen  swischen 
Christen  und  Juden  im  Mittelalter.  Halberstadt,  1882. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT          5 

free  interplay  ceased  as  a  matter  of  course  when  the  ghetto 
became  an  established  official  institution  throughout 
Europe ; *  the  Jew,  shut  up  within  the  ghetto  walls  and 
barred  from  all  contact  with  the  outside  world  by  the  ghetto 
gates,  gradually  became  also  intellectually  ostracized  from 
the  thought  currents  in  the  world  without.  The  visible 
material  ghetto  had  as  its  concomitant  the  imperceptible  in- 
tellectual ghetto.  The  period  from  the  sixteenth  to  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  era  of  official  ghettoism,  is  coincident 
with  the  exclusion  of  the  Jew  from  all  sympathetic  concern 
with  the  culture  of  the  world.  His  intellectual  outlook  was 
bounded  by  the  Talmud  and  its  dependent  disciplines.  His 
Weltanschauung  was  restricted  by  the  narrowing  influence 
of  the  Shulchan  Aruk 2  and  all  that  this  implies.  The 
constant  restriction  of  the  Jewish  mind  to  the  study  of  the 
Talmud  and  the  casuists  resulted  in  the  fantastic  inge- 
nuities of  pilpulism,  and  the  rigid  observance  of  the  enact- 
ments codified  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  made  of  the  religion 
a  legalistic  system.  Pilpulism  and  Shulchan  Arukism  were 
the  logical  accompaniments  of  ghettoism.  The  jargon  lan- 
guage went  hand  in  hand  with  these  phenomena.  The  deg- 
radation of  the  Jewish  communities  of  Europe  was  almost 
complete  by  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  The 
Jews  were  cramped  intellectually ;  they  were  social  pariahs ; 
politically  they  were  non-existent;  they  spoke  a  language 
which  was  a  strange  conglomerate  of  Hebrew  and  German, 
with  a  sprinkling  of  terms  and  phrases  from  the  other 
languages  of  Europe.  The  systematic  exclusion  of  centu- 
ries had  done  its  work.  But  this  could  not  last  for  ever. 
It  was  unnatural.  The  Jew  must  once  again  come  into 
contact  with  the  larger  world,  and  when  this  would  prove 

1  Philipson,  Old  European  Jewries,  20  ff .     Philadelphia,  1894. 

3  The  fourfold  code  compiled  by  Joseph  Karo  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury; this  code,  which  contained  the  decisions  of  Talmudical  and 
rabbinical  authorities  on  all  subjects,  was  the  observant  Jew's  vade 
mecum. 


6  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

to  be  the  case,  he  would  follow  the  example  of  former  gen- 
erations, as  just  recounted,  would  emerge  from  the  intellec- 
tual prison-house  in  which  he  had  been  confined  during 
the  ghetto  centuries  and  participate  in  the  highest  cultural 
aspirations  of  his  time ;  the  form  which  the  public  expres- 
sion of  his  religion  had  assumed,  and  the  interpretation 
which  the  religion  had  received  during  these  dark  ages, 
would  be  subjected  to  searching  examination  in  the  light 
of  the  broader  culture.  Intellectual  and  religious  emanci- 
pation usually  advance  pari  passu;  it  is  the  story  of  relig- 
ious reform  resulting  from  the  acquisition  of  secular  educa- 
tion and  civil  emancipation  among  the  Jews  that  it  is  the 
purpose  of  these  pages  to  unfold. 

At  the  very  outset  it  may  be  well  to  indicate  briefly  a 
few  distinguishing  marks  of  this  movement  which  is  so 
radical  a  departure  from  the  rabbinical  traditions.  Apart 
from  the  purely  external  reforms  that  aimed  at  beautifying, 
making  intelligible  and  bringing  order  and  decorum  into 
the  public  service,  the  gradual  introduction  whereof  will 
appear  in  the  course  of  the  unfolding  of  this  history,  there 
must  be  borne  in  mind  chiefly  and  above  all  the  principles 
which  mark  the  ref orto  movement. 

In  the  first  place,  in  the  view  of  rabbinical  Judaism 
every  command  of  the  written  law  in  the  Pentateuch  ( Torali 
sh'bikthab) ,  and  of  the  oral  law  (Torali  sli'b'al  peh),  as 
codified  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk,  is  equally  binding.  The 
ceremonial  law  has  equal  potency  with  the  religious  and 
moral  commands.  Reform  Judaism,  on  the  other  hand, 
claims  that  a  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  universal 
precepts  of  religion  and  morality  and  the  enactments  arising 
from  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  special  times  and 
places.  Customs  and  ceremonies  must  change  with  the  vary- 
ing needs  of  different  generations.  Successive  ages  have 
their  individual  requirements  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  re- 
ligious nature.  No  ceremonial  law  can  be  eternally  binding. 
No  one  generation  can  legislate  for  all  future  ages.  Man- 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT         7 

kind  grows.  The  Biblical  books  and  the  Talmudical  collec- 
tions, when  approached  in  this  spirit,  yield  wonderful  re- 
sults. The  stream  of  change  and  development  is  perceptible 
throughout.  The  universal  commands  implanted  in  the 
heart  of  man,  and  dependent  on  neither  time  nor  place, 
are  the  essentials  which  never  change,  as  Abraham  Ibn 
Ezra  puts  it;  the  special  laws,  however,  which  arise  from 
temporary  and  local  conditions,  are  not  written  indelibly 
in  the  eternal  scheme  of  things.  This  test  reform  Judaism 
applies  to  the  traditions,  and  in  all  its  development  this 
has  been  the  guiding  principle.  Not  that  Reform  Judaism 
repudiates  tradition  or  has  broken  with  Jewish  development 
as  is  often  charged  erroneously ;  it  lays  as  great  stress  upon 
the  principle  of  tradition  as  does  rabbinical  Judaism,  but  it 
discriminates  between  separate  traditions  as  these  have  be- 
come actualized  in  forms,  ceremonies,  customs  and  beliefs, 
accepting  or  rejecting  them  in  accordance  with  the  modern 
religious  need  and  outlook,  while  rabbinical  Judaism  makes 
no  such  discrimination.  In  a  word,  Reform  Judaism  dif- 
ferentiates between  tradition  and  the  traditions;  it  con- 
siders itself,  too,  a  link  in  the  chain  of  Jewish  tradition, 
the  product  of  this  modern  age  as  Talmudism  was  of  its 
age. 

Rabbinical  Judaism,  teaching  as  it  does,  the  eternal  va- 
lidity of  all  the  laws  and  ceremonies,  whether  prescribed 
in  the  Pentateuch  or  developed  by  tradition,  takes  a  pecu- 
liar stand  in  reference  to  such  laws  whose  fulfillment  is 
dependent  upon  residence  in  the  land  of  Palestine.  These 
laws,  it  claims,  are  suspended  for.  a  time  owing  to  the  dis- 
persion; they  are  not  abrogated,  but  only  suspended,  and 
will  be  again  binding  when  the  Jews  will  be  restored  to 
their  ancient  land.  This  brings  us  to  a  second  point  of 
difference.  The  burden  of  the  thought  of  rabbinical  Juda- 
ism is  national.  The  hope  expressed  in  the  traditional 
prayers  is  that  the  Jews  will  return  to  Palestine,  again  be- 
come a  nation  under  the  rule  of  a  scion  of  the  house  of 


g  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

David,  reinstitute  the  sacrifices  under  the  ministration  of 
the  descendants  of  Aaron,  and  worship  in  the  temple  re- 
built on  the  ruins  of  the  temple  of  old.  The  Jews,  in  their 
dispersion  among  the  nations,  are  in  a  state  of  exile ;  their 
century-long  sufferings  are  a  punishment  for  the  sins  com- 
mitted by  the  fathers  while  living  in  Palestine ;  when  the 
measure  of  the  expiation  will  be  full,  the  restoration  will 
take  place.  Against  this  doctrine  reform  Judaism  pro- 
tests. It  contends  that  the  national  existence  of  the  Jews 
ceased  when  the  Romans  set  the  temple  aflame  and  de- 
stroyed Jerusalem.  The  career  in  Palestine  was  but  a 
preparation  for  Israel's  work  in  all  portions  of  the  world. 
As  the  early  home  of  the  faith,  as  the  land  where  the 
prophets  uttered  their  world-subduing  thoughts  and  the 
psalmists  sang  their  world-enchanting  hymns,  Palestine  is 
a  precious  memory  of  the  past,  but  it  is  not  a  hope  of  the 
future.  With  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  all  over  the 
world,  the  universal  mission  of  Judaism  began.  The  Jews 
are  citizens  and  faithful  sons  of  the  lands  of  their  birth  or 
adoption.  They  are  a  religious  community,  not  a  nation. 
Connected  with  this  change  of  the  conception  of  Juda- 
ism from  a  national  to  a  universal  faith  is  the  difference 
in  the  attitude  on  the  Messianic  question.  Rabbinical 
Judaism  posits  the  coming  of  a  personal  Messiah;  reform 
Judaism,  rejecting  this,  teaches  the  coming  of  the  Messianic 
age  of  universal  peace  and  good-will  among  men.  In  the 
wake  of  the  thought  of  the  great  unknown  prophet  of  the 
captivity,  commonly  known  as  the  second  Isaiah,  reform 
Judaism  applies  the  idea  of  Messianic  leadership  to  the 
people  of  Israel,  not  to  any  one  individual.  As  in  the 
theology  of  reform  Judaism  the  thought  of  the  priesthood 
of  the  whole  people  of  Israel  has  been  substituted  for  the 
priesthood  of  the  families  of  Aaron,  so  also  has  the  belief 
in  the  Messiahship  of  the  people  displaced  the  traditional 
faith  in  the  advent  of  the  individual,  personal  Messianic 
king. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT         9 

Although  the  movement  which  has  given  practical  ex- 
pression to  these  doctrines  is  primarily  of  a  religious 
nature,  yet  can  it  not  be  adequately  understood  unless 
viewed  in  connection  with  other  phenomena  in  the  life  of 
the  Jews,  for  it  involved  not  only  a  change  in  the  religious 
outlook,  but  also  a  new  interpretation  of  the  educational, 
literary,  cultural  and  political  aspirations  of  the  Jewish 
communities. 

No  religious  movement  of  this  kind  is  isolated.  *  It  is 
the  outcome  of  preceding  causes.  The  immediate  causes 
in  this  case  were  three  ;  first,  the  new  intellectual  movements 
inaugurated  among  the  Jews  along  lines  different  from  the 
old  methods  ;  2  secondly,  the  linguistic  emancipation  —  if 
I  may  so  term  the  acquisition  by  the  Jews  of  a  pure  lan- 
guage—through the  medium  of  Mendelssohn's  Torah  trans- 
lation ;  this  pure  language  displaced  the  jargon,  and  enabled 
the  Jews  to  participate  in  the  remarkable  literary  awaken- 
ing that  took  place  in  Germany  in  the  closing  quarter  of 
the  eighteenth  century  and  to  acquire  the  culture  of  the 
time  ;  3  and,  thirdly,  the  civil  emancipation  which  began 
with  the  act  of  Sept.  27,  1791,  of  the  National  Assembly 
of  France,  that  declared  the  Jews  to  be  citizens  of  the 
country,  and  the  similar  enactment  of  the  Batavian  Repub- 
lic in  1795.  A  complete  revolution  in  Jewry  resulted. 
The  Jews  were  being  brought  once  again  into  touch  with 
the  life  and  culture  of  the  world.  The  old  order  was 
changing.  New  hopes  and  ideals  stirred  hundreds  among 
this  people.  In  all  the  larger  Jewish  communities  of 


JS.  Bernfeid,  ^msni  rpmn  iiixcniDnn  nn^nn  I,  6  ff.  Krakau, 
1900. 

3Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums  und  seiner  Sekten,  III,  317; 
Holdheim,  G.  J.  B.  G.  B.,  23,  Berlin,  1857;  M.  Levin,  Die  Beform 
des  Judenthums,  19,  Berlin,  1895. 

»Zunz,  Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  der  Juden,  14;  Geiger's 
Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  fur  jiidische  Theologie,  V,  7;  Hold- 
heim, G.  J.  B.  G.  B.,  14;  S.  Stern,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums,  184. 
Breslau,  1870. 


10       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Germany  men  who  had  acquired  the  new  learning  began 
to  appear.  Although  comparatively  few  in  number  at 
first  their  influence  was  none  the  less  telling,  chiefly  because 
of  their  attainments.  A  sign  of  the  times  was  the  pub- 
lication of  the  Jewish  magazine,  Ham-meassef,  in  Koriigs- 
berg  in  1783;  the  band  of  men  who  wrote  for  its  pages, 
mostly  friends  or  disciples  of  Mendelssohn  and  known  as 
the  Meass'fim,  did  much  towards  spreading  the  new  cul- 
ture among  their  co-religionists. 1  These  phenomena  caused 
unwonted  disquiet  in  the  Jewish  communities,  and  rabbis  of 
the  old  school  felt  correctly  that  the  new  education  was 
dealing  a  death-blow  to  the  old  era ; 2  hence  their  anathema 
against  Mendelssohn's  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
Hartwig  Wessely's  open  letter  to  his  co-religionists,  which 
advised  them  to  educate  their  children  along  the  lines  laid 
down  in  the  Toleration  Edict  of  the  Emperor  Joseph  II  of 
Austria  in  1782,  viz.,  in  secular  branches  and  in  the  German 
language.  But  anathemas  cannot  stay  the  progress  of 
events.  They  are  usually  the  last  resort  of  the  entrenched 
authorities  who  feel  their  power  waning.  An  interesting 
side-light  is  thrown  on  the  conditions  at  this  critical  junc- 

1  The  chief  writers  for  this  magazine  were  Isaac  Euchel  who  trans- 
lated the  Prayer-Book  and  also  the  Book  of  Proverbs;  the  celebrated 
physician,    Michael    Friedlander;    the    ingenuous    grammarian,    Joel 
Loewe  of  Breslau;   the  philologist,  Isaac   Satanow  of  Berlin;   Herz 
Homburg,  superintendent  of  the  Jewish  schools  in  the  Austrian  em- 
pire that  were  founded  after  the  formulation  of  the  edict  of   the 
Emperor  Joseph;  Hartwig  Wessely,  and  others. 

2  As  late   as   1844   the   orthodox   rabbis   of   Hungary   opposed   the 
institution  of  schools  of  modern  learning  and  declared  it  a  sacrilege  to 
have    the     Talmud     and    German    taught    in    the    same    building. 
Allgemeine    Zeitung    des    Judenthums,    VIII,    583.     Similarly,    the 
orthodox  rabbis  of  Pressburg  counseled  their  constituency  to  issue 
a  petition  calling  upon  the  Jews  of  Hungary  to  refuse  the  proposed 
grant  by  the  government  of  Jewish  civil  emancipation;  they  declared 
the  wish  for  political  equality  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  as  sinful  and  as 
inconsistent  with  Israel's  hopes  for  the  future.     Ibid.,  452.     See  also 
N.  Samter,  Judentaufen  im  19  Jahrhundert,  16,  note  1.     Berlin,  1906. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT       H 

ture,  when  the  old  Judaism  was  struggling  to  retain  its 
hold  and  the  new  had  not  yet  made  its  appearance,  by  the 
document  addressed  by  one  of  the  foremost  rabbis  of  the 
time  to  his  congregation.  I  refer  to  the  letter  of  farewell 
written  by  Rabbi  Hirschl  Levin,  the  aged  chief  rabbi  of  the 
Berlin  community.  He  was  not  a  fanatic.  He  did  not 
join  with  other  rabbis  in  their  denunciation  of  Mendelssohn 
and  \Vessely.  On  the  contrary  he  was  an  admirer  of  Men- 
delssohn. This  rabbinical  chief  was  greatly  distressed  at 
the  disquieting  conditions  prevalent  in  Germany's  chief 
Jewish  congregation  towards  the  close  of  the  eighteenth 
century.  He  recognized  that  changes  were  impending,  but 
he  could  not  comprehend  what  it  all  meant.  Judaism 
seemed  to  him  to  be  threatened  with  some  great  danger  and 
to  be  near  dissolution.  Because  of  this  sad  situation  he 
states  that  he  desires  to  resign  his  office  and  go  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  end  his  days  in  the  Holy  Land,  for  he  cannot  bear 
to  witness  any  longer  the  decay  of  the  religious  life  among 
his  people. 1  From  such  expressions  the  inference  is  drawn 
readily  that  the  rabbinical  interpretation  of  Judaism  had 
ceased  to  appeal  to  a  large  section  of  the  community.  There 
was  a  conflict  between  the  demands  made  by  the  traditional 
religion  and  the  life  the  people  were  leading.  Further, 
such  as  had  acquired  the  philosophical  and  literary  culture 
of  the  time,  could  find  no  religious  satisfaction  in  the 
observance  of  forms,  customs,  and  ceremonies  that  had  been 
unhesitatingly  and  unquestioningly  accepted  by  the  fathers 
as  constituting  an  essential  element  of  the  faith.  No 
wonder  that  the  old  rabbi  felt  that  the  ground  was  slipping 
from  beneath  his  feet.  He  and  such  as  he  knew  but  one 
rule  for  the  Jew,  and  that  was  the  faithful  performance 
of  every  jot  and  tittle  of  religious  observance  as  codified 
in  the  Shulchan  Aruk.  Here,  however,  were  hundreds 2 

1Bernfeld,  Juden  und  JudentTium  im  neunzehnten  Jahrhundert,  8. 
Berlin,  1898. 

2  Hirschel  Levin  7s  own  son,  Saul  Berlin,  was  affected  by  the  modern 


12  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

upon  whom  this  obligation  sat  lightly,  aye,  who  disregarded 
utterly  many  an  injunction  that  he  considered  of  supreme 
importance.  But  although  the  impending  change  was  in 
the  air,  the  eighteenth  century  witnessed  but,  one  practical 
demonstration  of  the  working  of  the  new  spirit.  This,  too, 
not  in  Germany  but  in  Holland.  In  1796  a  congregation 
was  organized  in  Amsterdam  under  the  name  and  title 
Adath  Jeshurun,  whose  avowed  purpose  was  to  introduce 
some  reforms,  but  these  were  so  insignificant  that  although 
the  formation  of  the  congregation  was  the  outcome  of 
great  agitation, 1  the  results  were  painfully  inadequate. 
These  results  were  merely  the  abolition  of  some  piyyutim  2 
or  liturgical  pieces  wherewith  the  synagogal  service  had  be- 
come overburdened,  and  the  use  of  the  vernacular  in  pub- 
lic addresses. 3 

Before  passing  to  the  story  of  the  reform  movement  and 
detailing  its  significance  and  its  progress,  the  attitude  in 
this  matter  of  Moses  Mendelssohn,  the  foremost  Jew  of  the 
eighteenth  century  and  of  one  other  prominent  figure  in 
eighteenth-century  Jewry  who  made  a  peculiar  attempt 
towards  solving  the  religious  problem  involved  in  the  tran- 
sition from  the  old  life  of  the  ghetto  to  the  new  life  of  the 
latter  days  in  which  he  lived  must  be  considered  briefly. 
Mendelssohn  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  the  originator  of 
the  reform  movement  in  Judaism.  This  rests  upon  a  mis- 
spirit.  In  1793  he  published  a  book,  Besamim  Eosh,  which  purported 
to  be  a  collection  of  responses  by  Asher  ben  Jechiel,  a  great  rab- 
binical authority  of  the  fourteenth  century.  A  number  of  reforms 
are  sanctioned  by  the  writer  of  the  responses.  The  book  and  the 
author  were  assailed  as  spurious  by  Markus  Benedikt,  chief  rabbi  of 
Moravia,  and  as  zealously  defended  by  Saul  Berlin's  father.  There 
seems  little  doubt  that  the  publication  was  Saul  Berlin's  own,  who 
used  the  name  of  the  great  mediaeval  rabbi  to  voice  and  give  weight 
to  the  ideas  of  his  own  generation. 

1  Jbst,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  IX,  120. 

'Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  147.    Berlin,  1875. 

*  Jost's  Israelitische  Annalen,  I,  58.     Frankfurt  am  Main,  1839. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT        13 

conception.  True,  Mendelssohn  made  the  reform  move- 
ment possible  by  giving  the  impulse  to  modern  education 
among  the  Jews.  But  a  religious  reformer  he  was  not. 1 
Quite  the  contrary.  He  conformed  strictly  to  every  re- 
quirement and~  demand  of  rabbinical  Judaism.  His  con- 
ception of  Judaism  was  that  it  is  divine  legislation ; 2  that 
since  the  ceremonial  law  was  revealed  by  God,  it  has  potency 
and  must  be  observed  until  it  shall  be  repealed  distinctly 
by  another  revelation.  But  Holdheim  pointed  out  in  a 
number  of  passages3  how  poorly  taken  Mendelssohn's 
position  was  in  this  matter.  The  Pentateuch  as  well  as  the 
prophets  teach  positive  religious  doctrines;  therefore 
Judaism  demands  belief  as  well  as  practice.  As  for  the 
contention  that  another  revelation  is  necessary  to  repeal 
the  ceremonial  laws,  Holdheim  gave  utterance  to  the  strik- 
ing thought  that  the  spirit  of  the  age  is  also  a  revelation  of 
God,  and  that  this  commanded  the  abolition  of  many 
observances  that  had  religious  sanction  at  one  time ;  besides, 
many  of  the  ceremonies  considered  obligatory  by  the  rab- 
binical Jew  are  the  products  of  the  Talmudic  age;  were 
these  also  revealed  ?  Mendelssohn 's  position  was  altogether 
inconsistent.  He  would  not  grant  that  religious  beliefs 
and  practices  are  subject  to  the  same  laws  of  change  and 
progress  as  obtain  in  other  provinces  of  human  thought 
and  activity.  For  him  Judaism  was  a  closed  chapter. 
The  contention  of  reform  Judaism  is  the  very  opposite. 
For  Mendelssohn  every  ceremony  was  of  eternal  validity; 
for  the  Jewish  reformers  ceremonies  were  transitory  ex- 
pressions of  the  religious  spirit  and  had  to  be  accommo- 

1  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  120,  note. 

3  Jerusalem,  31;  cf.  the  article  Ueber  die  von  Mendelssohn  im  Jeru- 
salem gedusserte  ewige  Verpflichtung  des  Ceremonialgesetzes  in 
Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  VI,  153;  also  Geiger,  in  his 
Judische  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  VTE,  7. 

*  Autonomie  der  Babbinen,  38,  45.  Vortrdge  uber  die  mosaiscJie 
Religion,  59;  Ceremonialgesetz  im  Messiasreich,  58,  68;  G.  J.  E. 
G.  B.,  94,  227. 


14  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

dated  to  the  changing  needs  of  successive  ages.  But 
Mendelssohn  did  not  live  to  see  this  thought  become  domi- 
nant. In  his  own  life  he  succeeded  in  avoiding  the  conflict 
between  the  old  Judaism  and  the  new  culture;  how  artifi- 
cial his  position  was  grows  clear  from  the  religious  expe- 
riences of  his  own  offspring;  being  children  of  the  era  of 
enlightenment  and  having  received  an  intellectual  training 
in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  time,  they  could  find  no 
satisfaction  in  the  ceremonial  observance  that  passed  for 
Judaism,  and  hence  they  abandoned  the  ancestral  faith. 
There  were  hundreds  in  a  similar  plight ;  the  reform  move- 
ment was  the  outcome  of  the  clear  thought  that  distin- 
guished the  permanent  from  the  transitory  in  religion. 
Mendelssohn,  interpreting  Judaism  to  be  mere  legislation, 
could  not  have  formulated  such  a  program.  He  was  as 
little  a  religious  reformer  as  was  Ezekiel  Landau  of 
Prague,  one  of  the  hyper-orthodox  rabbis  who  pronounced 
the  ban  upon  his  German  translation  of  the  Pentateuch. 1 
A  peculiar  attempt  at  the  solution  of  the  religious  diffi- 
culties in  Judaism  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century 
was  made  by  David  Friedlander,  the  best  known  of  the  dis- 
ciples of  Mendelssohn.  Friedlander  was  a  man  of  broad  cul- 
ture and  was  keenly  interested  in  the  forward  movements 
among  his  co-religionists.  He  was  one  of  the  leading 
spirits  in  the  foundation  of  the  first  school  that  taught 
secular  branches  to  Jewish  children.  This  was  the  Jewish 
Free  School  of  Berlin,  founded  in  1778.  He  was  also 
active  in  a  literary  way,  and  published  among  other  things 
a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Prayer-Book  (Berlin,  1786). 
This  translation  met  with  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
rabbis  of  the  old  school  similar  to  that  aroused  by  Mendels- 
sohn 's  Pentateuch  translation.  Eleazer  Fleckeles  of 
Prague  denounced  it  vehemently  in  his  Olath  Zibbur,  and 
declared  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  prayers  into  Ger- 
man to  be  one  of  the  greatest  of  sins.  Friedlander 

1  Of.  Holdheim,  G.  J.  K.  G.  B.,  120-121  note. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT        15 

answered  him  in  an  "  Epistle  to  the  German  Jews, "  *  in 
which  he  set  forth  the  necessity  of  the  people  understand- 
ing the  prayers,  and  denounced  the  obscurantism  that  finds 
in  the  mere  use  of  the  Hebrew  some  saving  power,  even 
though  what  is  prayed  in  that  language  be  unintelligible. 

The  distressing  condition  of  affairs  among  the  Jews  of 
Berlin  toward  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  religious- 
ly speaking,  led  Friedlander  to  take  a  fantastic  step.  As 
said  above,  rabbinical  Judaism  which  had  degenerated  into 
a  casuistical  system  of  legalistic  intricacies  had  lost  its  hold 
upon  many;  the  service  in  the  synagogue,  with  its  sale  of 
the  mitzwot,  its  disorder,  its  interminable  length,  was  un- 
dignified, and  repelled  rather  than  attracted  them.  Added 
to  this  was  the  fact  that  these  men  found  the  doors  leading 
to  the  professions  or  official  careers  closed  to  them  because 
they  were  Jews.  All  these  circumstances  led  to  an  exten- 
sive abandonment  of  Judaism.  Conversions  to  Christian- 
ity were  numerous.  This  appalling  state  of  affairs  in- 
duced Friedlander  to  write  in  1799  his  notorious  "  Epistle 
of  Several  Jewish  Fathers  to  Councillor  Teller. " 2  In 
this  communication  Friedlander  declared  himself  and  his 
sympathizers  ready  to  accept  Christianity,  on  the  condi- 
tion that  they  might  dispense  with  the  distinctive  Christian 
doctrines  such  as  the  trinity,  the  divinity  of  Jesus,  and  the 
observance  of  the  Christian  festivals.  He  declared  further 
that  Judaism  in  its  essentiality  requires  belief  in  but  three 
doctrines,  the  unity  of  God,  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  the  mission  to  reach  out  towards  moral  perfection. 
Teller 's  answer  was  discouraging,  as  was  to  be  expected  from 
an  orthodox  Christian ;  for  even  though  the  writers  of  the 
epistle  had  expressed  their  willingness  to  call  themselves 
Christians,  what  they  proposed  was  far  from  a  declaration 

1  Sendschreiben  an  die  deutschem  Juden.     Berlin,  1788. 

3  Sendschreiben  an  seine  Hochwiirden  Herrn  Consistorialrath  und 
Probst  Teller  zu  Berlin,  von  einigen  Hausvater  jiidischer  Eeligion. 
Berlin,  1799. 


16  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  Christianity ;  it  was  the  play  of  Hamlet  without  Hamlet. 
From  the  Jewish  standpoint,  too,  Friedlander  made  a 
serious  mistake.  In  truth  he  evidenced  by  this  Epistle 
that  he  did  not  understand  Judaism.  The  past  develop- 
ment of  Judaism  cannot  be  thrown  overboard  lightly  as 
he  purposed  to  do.  Judaism  represents  a  growth,  as  the 
Jewish  reformers  taught  constantly.  True,  their  opponents 
contended  unceasingly  that  the  reform  movement  implied 
a  complete  break  with  the  past :  but  the  scholars  and  think- 
ers who  are  the  founders  of  reform  in  Judaism  justified 
their  standpoint  by  the  fact  that  their  researches  had  con- 
vinced them  that  in  Judaism  there  was  a  constant  develop- 
ment; that  the  past  furnished  ample  indications  that  the 
stream  of  thought  was  ever  flowing;  that  forms,  prayers, 
and  ceremonies  were  the  products  of  different  times ;  ' '  every 
era  in  the  history  of  Judaism  is  of  importance ;  the  present 
can  break  with  the  past  as  little  as  any  separate  limb  can 
dissociate  itself  from  the  body  without  suffering  serious 
injury.  Such  a  connection  with  the  past  means  not  the 
dominance  of  dead  custom,  but  the  persistence  of  the  liv- 
ing idea  which  permeates  all  ages  with  its  vigor,  and  if 
it  leads  to  different  developments  this  does  not  justify  a 
disregard  of  its  origins.  If  anywhere  it  is  in  the  religious 
province  that  reform  alone  brings  blessing. "  Thus  wrote 
Geiger, 1  and  his  position  was  shared  by  all  who  under- 
stood the  true  inwardness  of  the  reform  movement. 2  In 
truth,  it  was  the  investigations  of  scholars  into  the  past 
productions  of  the  Jewish  mind  and  spirit  that  laid  the 
foundations  for  the  true  reform  movement.  Friedlander 
therefore  was  most  superficial  in  his  sensational  letter  to 
Teller.  If,  as  has  been  stated  by  an  apologist  for  Fried- 

1 ' '  Nothwendigkeit  und  Mass  einer  Beform  des  jiidischen  Gottes- 
dienstes,"  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  205. 

*  Ibid.,  127,  187,  204,  Holdheim,  Verketzerung  und  Gewissens- 
freiheit,  passim ;  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  Preface,  iii ;  Low,  Gesammelte  Schrif- 
ten, II,  271.  Levin,  Eeform  des  Judenihums,  80. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOKM  MOVEMENT       17 

lander, x  this  letter  was  a  counsel  of  despair  because  of  the 
wholesale  defections  from  Judaism,  the  proposed  remedy 
was  equivalent  to  killing  the  patient. 2  This  incident  il- 
lustrates how  deeply  the  waters  of  Jewish  life  were  stirred 
in  the  years  immediately  preceding  the  birth  of  the  reform 
movement;  the  ship  of  Judaism  had  been  loosened  from 
the  old  moorings  and  was  floundering  in  strange  waters; 
many  had  deserted  the  ship;  far-seeing  ones  among  the 
faithful  discerned  that  the  ship  required  a  new  anchor; 
this  they  found  in  the  movement  that  reconciled  the  teach- 
ings and  practices  of  Judaism  with  the  culture,  the  needs 
and  the  spirit  of  the  time. 

Schools.    Israel  Jacolson. 

The  road  to  the  reform  movement  iay  really  through  the 
schools  of  modern  tendency  that  began  to  be  founded  among 
the  Jews  in  the  closing  decades  of  the  eighteenth  century. 3 
True,  from  time  immemorial  there  had  been  provision  for 
the  education  of  the  young.  But  this  education  had  come 
to  be  restricted  to  purely  Hebrew  instruction.  In  Germany 
the  Jewish  schools  had  fallen  to  a  sorry  state.  The  school- 
masters, called  melammedim,  were  for  the  most  part  un- 
couth Poles,  devoid  of  all  pedagogical  ability.  The  cheder, 
as  the  Jewish  school  was  called,  was  synonymous  with  dis- 
order; the  instruction  was  haphazard  and  the  influence  of 
the  teachers  was  not  for  the  best.  A  thoroughgoing  re- 
form of  the  school  system  was  necessary  if  the  Jews  were 
once  again  to  participate  in  the  life  of  the  world  as  seemed 
likely  from  the  signs  of  the  times.  This  was  accomplished 
by  the  establishment  of  schools  in  various  places  where 

1  Schreiber,    Reformed   Judaism    and   its   Pioneers,    34.     Spokane, 
1892. 

2  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  79-81. 

'Levin,  Die  Reform   des  Judenthums,   19.     Bernfeld,  Juden  und 
Judenthum  im  19ten  Jahrhundert,  28.     Jost,  Geschichte  des  Juden- 
thums und  seiner  SeTcten,  III,  317. 
2 


18  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

training  in  the  Hebrew  branches  was  supplemented  by  in- 
struction in  secular  studies;  a  decree  providing  for  the 
establishment  of  one  of  these  schools  declared  that  "a 
regular  school  should  be  founded  in  which  the  children, 
besides  receiving  instruction  in  the  religious  branches, 
should  be  taught  pure  morality,  love  for  humanity,  their 
duties  as  subjects,  as  well  as  writing,  reckoning,  language, 
geography,  history,  and  natural  science,  in  order  that  the 
rising  generation  may  be  educated  .to  become  useful  citi- 
zens of  the  State. ' ' 1  Children  reared  in  such  a  school 
could  not  help  but  become  disaffected  with  the  views  and 
conditions  that  had  been  accepted  by  their  parents  as  a 
matter  of  course.  The  first  of  these  schools  in  order  of 
time  was  the  Jewish  Free  School  of  Berlin,  adverted  to 
above  as  having  been  founded  in  1778  by  David  Fried- 
lander  and  his  brother-in-law  Isaac  Daniel  Itzig.  This 
school  was  superintended  for  a  time  by  that  remarkable 
thinker,  Lazarus  Bendavid,  a  Kantian  and  a  fine  spirit. 
Bendavid  was  one  of  the  foremost  figures  among  the  Jews 
of  the  " enlightenment"  period;  he  had  been  ordered  to 
leave  Vienna  by  the  police  on  the  charge  of  being  an 
"innovator,"  because  in  a  pamphlet,  "The  Characteristics 
of  the  Jews,"  called  forth  by  the  Toleration  Edict  of 
Joseph  II,  he  had  given  expression  to  several  very  liberal 
ideas  on  ceremonialism  and  religion:  the  statement  which 
gave  the  greatest  offence  was  the  assertion  that  the  faults 
of  the  Jews  arose  from  the  oppression  to  which  they  had 
been  subjected;  this  was  construed  as  an  attack  on  Chris- 
tianity. Coming  to  Berlin  he  lived  the  quiet  life  of  the 
thinker,  supported  himself  by  grinding  lenses  after  the 
manner  of  Spinoza,  and  lent  what  influence  he  possessed 
to  the  forward  movement  among  his  co-religionists.  In 
1791  the  Wilhelmsschule  was  instituted  in  Breslau  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  decree  mentioned  above;  similar  schools 
were  founded  in  Dessau  (Herzogliche  Franzschule,  1799), 
1  Breslau,  May  21,  1790. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT       19 

in  Seesen  by  Israel  Jacobson  (Jacobsonschule,  1801),  in 
Frankfort-on-the-Main  (the  Philanthropin,  1804),  in 
Wolfenbiittel  ( Samsonschule,  1807),  in  Cassel  (1809). 
It  was  through  the  influence  exerted  by  the  instruction 
given  in  such  schools  that  the  first  reform  of  the  ritual  and 
the  public  worship  became  actualized;  in  these  schools  a 
service  was  instituted  for  the  pupils  in  which  reforms  were 
introduced  that  would  not  have  been  tolerated  in  the 
synagogue;  thus  the  children  became  accustomed  to  inno- 
vations, and  when  they  grew  to  maturity  often  enlisted  in 
the  cause  of  reform ; A  frequently  when  the  reformers  did 
not  venture  to  introduce  sermons  and  songs  in  the  vernac- 
ular into  the  service  in  the  synagogue,  this  was  done  in 
the  schools,  and  these  school  services  were  attended  by  many 
adults  who  would  have  felt  compunction  in  encouraging 
by  their  presence  a  similar  service  in  the  house  of  worship 
proper. 2 

The  name  of  Israel  Jacobson  has  been  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  foundation  of  the  school  at  Seesen.  He 
was  the  man  of  action  who  instituted  the  first  reforms  in 
the  Jewish  service.  Born  in  Halberstadt  in  1768,  he  mar- 
ried at  the  age  of  nineteen  the  daughter  of  Herz  Samson, 
the  wealthy  Hofjude  of  Brunswick.  Through  his  business 
connections  he  traveled  extensively  and  noted  the  peculiar 
conditions  existing  among  the  Jews.  Deeply  attached  to 
his  people  and  his  faith,  he  could  not  but  view  with  con- 
cern the  indifference  of  the  cultured  Jews  of  the  period, 
notably  in  Berlin,  to  their  religion;  the  rupture  between 
this  cultured  class  and  the  mass  of  the  people  was  becom- 
ing more  and  more  pronounced ;  the  Judaism  of  the  syna- 
gogue had  degenerated  into  a  lifeless  formalism ;  the  forms, 
customs,  and  ceremonies  had  usurped  the  place  of  the  es- 
sentials; the  public  service  consisted  of  an  endless  recita- 
tion of  frequently  unintelligible  liturgical  pieces,  and  was 

1  Jost,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  325. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  I,  240. 


20  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

marked  by  such  noise  and  indecorum  as  consorted  ill  with 
the  spirit  of  devotion ;  there  was  nothing  to  attract  one  to 
whom  religion  meant  something  more  than  the  slavish  ob- 
servance of  traditional  forms  which  however  religiously 
significant  they  may  once  have  been,  had  lost  much  of  their 
former  power  to  impress.  He  felt  that  there  must  be  some 
middle  way  between  the  contemptuous  attitude  of  the  so- 
called  enlightened  class  towards  Judaism  and  the  official 
expression  of  the  faith  from  which  the  living  breath  had 
departed,  leaving  only  the  dry  bones.  This  middle  way 
spelt  reform;  Jacobson  became  convinced  that  reforms  of 
some  kind  must  be  inaugurated ;  he  himself  was  not  capable 
of  introducing  a  thoroughgoing  reform  based  upon  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  sources  of  Judaism  and  its 
development;  he  had  neither  the  knowledge  nor  the  grasp 
to  accomplish  this.  He  was  neither  a  scholar  nor  a  phi- 
losopher. He  was  a  practical  man  of  great  intelligence  and 
some  learning  who  understood  the  needs  of  the  people.  He 
had  the  inclination  and  the  means  to  work  in  the  cause  of 
religious  progress.  He  proceeded  cautiously  and  began 
his  activity  by  founding  the  school  at  Seesen.  Through 
his  generosity,  his  wealth,  and  the  prominence  of  his  family 
connections  he  acquired  an  influential  position.  His  influ- 
ence grew  from  year  to  year  because  of  his  untiring 
activity.  The  French  occupation  of  western  Germany 
afforded  him  his  long-desired  opportunity.  The  kingdom 
of  Westphalia  was  formed  by  Napoleon  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  his  brother  Jerome  a  throne ;  the  code  of  France  be- 
came the  law  of  the  land;  the  Jews  were  benefited  by  the 
change ;  they  received  the  full  rights  of  citizenship,  and  by 
a  decree  of  March  31,  1808,  there  was  established,  after  the 
French  model,  a  Jewish  consistory  with  its  seat  in  Cassel 
that  was  to  direct  and  regulate  all  Jewish  affairs.  Jacobson 
was  named  president  of  the  consistory.  The  other  members 
of  the  consistory  were  three  rabbis  and  two  laymen.  The 
manner  in  which  the  consistory  was  to  proceed  was  a  matter 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT       21 

of  great  concern  to  Jacobson;  he  consulted  with  three  of 
the  foremost  Jews  of  the  generation  as  to  the  best  course 
to  pursue,  viz.  David  Friedlander  of  Berlin,  Aaron  Wolf- 
sohn  of  Breslau,  and  David  Frankel,  director  of  the  Fran- 
cis School  of  Dessau  and  an  editor  of  the  newly-established 
magazine  Sulamith,  the  first  Jewish  periodical  edited  in 
the  German  language.  Friedlander  was  particularly  in- 
sistent that  the  consistory  should  blaze  a  new  path.  But 
the  officers  of  the  consistory,  although  giving  him  a  respect- 
ful hearing,  determined  not  to  antagonize  rabbinical  Juda- 
ism. Jacobson  directed  the  activity  of  the  consistory  along 
the  lines  he  had  laid  down  at  Seesen.  A  school  was  estab- 
lished at  Cassel  in  which  instruction  was  given  in  elemen- 
tary branches.  Divine  service  was  held  every  Saturday  in 
the  chapel  of  the  school;  the  prayers  were  partly  in 
Hebrew,  partly  in  German;  a  member  of  the  consistory, 
frequently  the  president,  delivered  an  address  in  the  ver- 
nacular; German  hymns  were  sung.  These  slight  innova- 
tions were  the  beginning  of  the  reform  movement  as  a 
practical  achievement.  The  rabbis  who  were  members  of 
the  consistory  took  pains  to  show  that  these  apparent  inno- 
vations did  not  transgress  any  prescribed  rabbinical  enact- 
ments. The  school  service  met  with  such  favor  that 
Jacobson  determined  upon  a  bolder  step.  He  built  a  temple 
at  Seesen  at  his  own  expense,  placed  an  organ  in  it,  and 
formed  a  choir  from  among  the  pupils  of  the  school.  This 
temple  was  dedicated  with  great  eclat  on  July  17,  1810. 
The  event  was  described  as  the  Festival  of  the  Jewish 
Reformation.  Professors,  Christian  clergymen,  and  gov- 
ernmental officials  were  present.  Jacobson  was  enthusias- 
tically praised  in  more  than  one  literary  effusion  inspired 
by  the  occasion.  The  dedication  of  this  temple  was  con- 
sidered the  beginning  of  a  new  era  for  the  Jewish  people. 
From  this  temple  a  new  spirit  was  to  go  forth  that  would 
revolutionize  Jewry.  The  Jewish  people  would  now  emerge 
from  the  isolation  of  centuries.  Many  of  these  expres- 


22       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

sions  were  bombastic  and  extravagant.  Jacobson,  how- 
ever, seems  to  have  taken  them  quite  seriously.  He  really 
thought  that  the  religious  difficulties  that  were  corroding 
the  very  vitals  of  his  people  were  now  solved.  But  the 
evil  lay  deeper  than  he  had  the  power  to  fathom.  The 
reforms  with  which  his  name  is  associated  were  purely 
external.  He  did  all  he  could  according  to  his  light.  But 
he  did  not,  because  he  could  not,  penetrate  to  the  heart  of 
the  distemper  that  was  playing  such  havoc  with  the  in- 
herited traditions.  He  failed  to  recognize  that  there  was 
an  essential  conflict  between  the  viewpoint  of  rabbinical 
Judaism  and  that  of  the  new  era  which  was  dawning  for 
the  Jews.  His  was  not  the  philosophical  insight  to  deter- 
mine and  to  designate  the  essentials  of  the  religion,  to  show 
how  these  had  been  overshadowed  by  non-essentials  and  to 
define  the  real  significance  of  the  ceremonial  law  and  its 
proper  place  in  the  outworking  of  religious  development; 
his  was  not  the  scholarly  acumen  to  set  forth  clearly  the 
theses  that  would  prove  the  new  movement  to  be  a  necessity 
if  Judaism  was  to  continue  to  influence  as  a  religious  force 
those  born  within  the  pale,  and  if  there  was  not  to  be  a 
complete  break  between  religion  and  life.  The  superficial 
ills  only  were  evident  to  him.  He  had  noted  the  estrange- 
ment of  many  from  the  faith.  He  had  observed  also  that 
many  a  custom  had  crept  into  the  public  service  which  was 
unaesthetic,  that  the  manner  of  conducting  the  service 
offended  good  taste,  and  that  many  of  the  prayers  were 
unintelligible.  He  thought  that  these  things  alone  were 
the  causes  of  the  alienation  of  Jews,  especially  in  the  larger 
cities,  from  the  synagogue.  Hence  his  whole  aim  was  to 
aestheticize  the  service;  German  sermons,  German  hymns, 
some  German  prayers— these  he  considered  the  means  of 
making  the  religion  a  living  entity  to  his  generation  as  it 
had  been  to  the  fathers.  But  these  few  external  reforms 
did  not  meet  the  case.  They  simply  touched  the  rim  of 
the  problem.  But  with  all  his  limitations  his  fame  is 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT       23 

secure  as  the  pioneer  who  led  the  way  in  taking  active  steps 
towards  the  reform  of  the  service. 1 

The  German  sermon  as  a  regular  feature  of  the  service 
was  considered  a  marked  innovation  and  aroused  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  rabbis  of  the  traditional  school.  They  were 
accustomed  to  preach  but  twice  a  year,  on  the  Sabbath  pre- 
ceding Passover  and  on  the  Sabbath  of  the  penitential  sea- 
son between  New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day  of  Atonement. 
In  these  sermons,  or  rather  expositions,  they  explained  the 
laws  to  be  observed  in  connection  with  the  festivals.  They 
spoke  either  in  Hebrew  or  in  the  German- Jewish  jargon. 
To  preach  in  pure  German  was  therefore  denounced  as  an 
unjustifiable  innovation,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  it 
had  not  been  done  in  the  past.  True,  the  dedication  of 
the  Jacobson  temple  was  not  the  first  occasion  on  which  a 
German  sermon  had  been  preached  in  a  synagogue,  but  it 
gave  prominence  to  the  practice  and  assured  it  an  accred- 
ited place  in  the  service  as  a  regular  feature.  The  earliest 
record  we  have  of  such  a  sermon  is  connected  with  the 
name  of  Moses  Mendelssohn.  He  wrote  three  sermons, 
which  were  preached  in  the  synagogue  of  Berlin  by  the 
chief  rabbi  David  Hirschel  Frankel,  in  celebration  of  the 
victories  of  Frederick  the  Great  at  Rossbach  and  Leuthen 
and  of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  peace  at  Hubertus- 
berg.  -  These  were,  however,  exceptional  utterances.  The 

1  An  interesting  document  from  the  pen  of  Jacobson  has  been  pub- 
lished recently.     In  a  communication  addressed  to  the  Westphalian 
Minister,  von  Wolfingerode  in  May,  1810,  he  set  forth  his  ' '  Confession 
of  Faith/'     In  this  he  speaks  of  three  interpretations  of  Judaism — 
the  ceremonial,  the  moral- ceremonial  and  the  spiritual — and  declares 
himself  in  sympathy  with  the  last  named.     See  "Zur  Charakteristik 
Israel  Jacobsons,"  by  L.   Horwitz,  A.   Z.   d.  J.,  LXVIII    (1904), 
392-3. 

2  It  is  of  more  than  passing  interest  that  the  English  translation  of 
one  of   these  sermons  was  the  first  Jewish  publication  printed  in 
Philadelphia,  U.  S.  A.;  it  appeared  in  the  year  1763  under  the  title 
"A  Thanksgiving  Sermon  for  the  Important  and  Astonishing  Vic- 


24  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

first  preacher  who  made  a  practice  of  delivering  sermons 
in  German  was  Joseph  Wolf,  co-editor  with  David  Frankel 
of  the  magazine  Sulamith.  Wolf  delivered  his  first  Ger- 
man sermon  in  Dessau  in  1805. x  Although  preaching  in 
the  vernacular  was  considered  one  of  the  chief  reforms, 
still  was  it  in  reality  merely  a  return  to  a  practice  that 
was  quite  prevalent  in  a  much  earlier  day.  It  is  true  that 
such  preaching  had  been  .unknown  among  the  Jews  for 
some  time  past.  But  this  was  due  to  untoward  circum- 
stances. Such  as  did  not  know  the  development  of  Jewish 
homiletic  effort  imagined  that  there  was  some  inherent 
objection  to  it.  Here  was  an  instance  in  which  scholarship 
became  the  handmaid  of  reform.  In  his  epoch-making 
book,  Die  gottesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  der  Juden  (Berlin, 
1832),  Leopold  Zunz  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
doubt  that  preaching  in  the  vernacular  had  obtained  among 
the  Jews  in  many  lands  in  earlier  times,  and  that  therefore 
the  outcry  against  sermons  in  German  as  being  in  violation 
of  Jewish  tradition  was  due  to  ignorance  of  that  tradition. 
Jacobson  had  the  correct  intuition  that  preaching  in  the 
vernacular  might  attract  to  the  synagogue  some  who  had 
become  estranged.  The  rabbis  of  the  old  school  were  living 
practically  in  an  age  that  was  past;  their  generation  had 
outgrown  them;  they  were  unable  to  meet  the  religious 
requirements  of  the  people;  they  could  not  preach;  what 
they  called  preaching  was  an  explanation  of  rabbinic  ob- 
servance or  a  fantastic  explanation  of  Biblical  passages 
which  in  many  instances  they  did  not  understand,  owing 

tory  obtained  on  the  Fifth  of  December,  MDCCLVII,  over  the  united 
and  far  superior  Forces  of  the  Austrians  in  Silesia.  Preached  on 
Sabbath,  the  tenth  of  said  month,  at  the  Synagogue  of  the  Jews  in 
Berlin,  by  David  Hirschel  Frankel,  Arch-Eabbi.  Translated  from 
the  German  original  printed  at  Berlin. "  See  Publications  of  the 
Amer.  Jew.  Hist.  Soc.,  I,  63. 

1  *  *  Aus  meiner  Knabenzeit, ' '  Eeminiscences  by  Ludwig  Philippson, 
a  native  of  Dessau.    A.  Z.  d.  J.    LI  (1887),  750. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT       25 

to  their  ignorance  of  Hebrew  grammar ; 1  nor  could  they 
be  expected  to  preach  in  a  manner  edifying  to  men  and 
women  whose  outlook  upon  life  and  whose  interpretation 
of  religion  was  so  much  broader  than  theirs. 2 

As  long  as  rabbinism  was  the  acceptable  interpretation 
of  Judaism  the  spoken  word  was  not  missed  by  the  people ; 
the  rabbis  explained  the  laws  of  religious  practice  which 
were  the  be-all  of  the  religious  life ;  the  rabbi  was  not  ex- 
pected to  be  a  preacher,  but  an  adept  in  casuistical  inter- 
pretation, with  its  thousand-branched  tree  growing  from 
the  roots  of  Talmudical  dialectics.  But  when  life  began 
to  mean  something  more  than  rabbinism  could  explain 
satisfactorily,  when  the  two  civilizations  came  into  conflict, 
the  old  represented  by  rabbinism  and  suited  only  to  ghetto- 
conditions,  that  is,  an  existence  self-centered  and  isolated, 
and  the  new  adopted  by  the  people  of  the  contemporaneous 
age  who  had  emerged  from  the  exclusion  of  the  ghetto  and 
were  sharing  in  the  larger  life  of  their  new  possibilities, 
it  was  inevitable  that  the  old  had  to  give  way  if  the  chil- 
dren of  the  latter  days  were  to  be  retained  within  the  fold. 
Their  religion  would  have  to  be  expounded  in  an  intelli- 
gible and  acceptable  manner;  hence  the  necessity,  among 
other  things,  of  the  sermon  in  the  vernacular. 

To  sum  up  then,  we  may  say  that  Jacobson's  claim  to 
the  first  place,  in  point  of  time,  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
movement  in  Judaism  is  based  upon  his  effort  and  his  suc- 
cess in  making  the  service  attractive  to  many  of  his  con- 
temporaries. The  true  significance  of  this  earliest  effort 
in  behalf  of  reform  lies  in  the  attention  it  aroused  to  the 
possibility  of  giving  Judaism  a  public  expression  sympa- 
thetic to  the  living  generation.  However,  this  first  attempt 
at  reform  which  is  associated  with  the  name  of  Jacobson 
must  be  considered  merely  the  forerunner  of  the  true  re- 

1Dembitz,  Services  in  Synagogue  and  Home,  295.     Philadelphia, 
1898. 
2  See  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  art.  ' '  Homiletics. ' ' 


26  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

form  movement  whose  chief  protagonist  was  Abraham 
Geiger;  this  was  based  upon  the  historical  and  philosoph- 
ical interpretation  of  the  principles  of  the  religion.  The 
Jacobson  movement  did  not  spread  beyond  Westphalia, 
and  even  there  did  not  continue  long,  for  with  the  down- 
fall of  Napoleon  the  Westphalian  kingdom  ceased  to  be  a 
French  possession,  and  the  French  institutions,  among 
them  the  Jewish  consistory,  were  abolished.  This,  how- 
ever, did  not  end  Jacobson 's  activity  in  behalf  of  the  re- 
form of  the  ritual.  We  shall  meet  him  again  as  a  prom- 
inent figure  in  the  early  attempts  at  reform  in  the  Prus- 
sian capital,  whither  he  removed  after  the  collapse  of  the 
consistory  at  Cassel. 1 

The  French  Synhedrin. 

We  must  interrupt  the  thread  of  the  narrative  of  the 
development  of  the  reform  movement  in  Germany  for  a 
brief  space,  in  order  to  cast  a  glance  upon  Jewish  condi- 
tions in  the  neighboring  country  of  France.  The  Jews  of 
that  land  had  obtained  civil  emancipation  by  the  act  of  the 
Assembly  of  September  27,  1791.  The  political  events  in 
France  were  of  so  absorbing  a  nature  during  the  next  fif- 
teen years  that  everything  else  sank  into  insignificance. 
There  were,  it  is  true,  no  inner  agitations  within  the  Jew- 
ish communities  to  compare  with  the  stir  among  the  Jews 
of  Germany.  The  new  learning  which  was  the  immediate 
cause  of  the  dissatisfaction  with  rabbinism  among  the 
German  Jews  had  not  asserted  itself  among  their  French 
brethren.  Although  civilly  emancipated  and  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  citizens  of  France,  mediaeval  condi- 
tions, religiously  and  intellectually  speaking,  continued 
among  them.  The  emancipation  of  the  Jews,  too,  had  not 
been  accepted  with  equanimity  by  all  classes.  There  were 

1  The  first  reform  prayer-book  used  by  a  Jewish  congregation,  viz., 
that  of  the  Hamburg  Temple  congregation,  issued  in  1819,  was  dedi- 
cated to  Jacobson  as  the  father  of  the  reform  movement. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT       27 

constant  complaints  against  the  unfitness  of  the  Jews  for 
citizenship  as  being  not  only  distinct  in  their  religion  but  a 
strange  people  within  the  state. 1  Notably  from  Alsace 
did  these  charges  emanate,  especial  stress  being  laid  upon 
the  usurious  practices  of  the  Jews,  and  the  consequent  help- 
lessness of  the  peasants  who  may  have  fallen  into  their 
clutches:  the  further  charge  was  made  that  the  Jews  had 
no  sense  of  patriotism  or  civic  honor.  Napoleon,  who 
from  the  beginning  of  his  career  had  been  quite  favorably 
disposed  toward  the  Jews,  had  changed  his  attitude  after 
the  battle  of  Austerlitz. 2  The  affairs  of  the  Jews  were 
discussed  at  length  in  several  meetings  of  the  council  of 
state  in  the  year  1806.  Napoleon,  speaking  through  his 
mouthpiece  Mole,  was  for  curtailing  the  rights  of  the 
Jews. 3  This  met  with  determined  opposition  on  the  part 
of  several  members  of  the  council.  It  was  thereupon 
determined  to  call  a  convention  of  Jewish  notables,  through 
whom  the  affairs  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  regulated.  In  a 
decree  issued  May  30,  1806,  the  Emperor  commanded  the 
attendance  at  Paris  in  July  of  that  year  of  the  foremost 
men  among  the  Jews  ("une  synagogue  generale  des 
Juifs"),  who  were  to  voice  the  sentiments  of  the  Jews  and 
to  make  such  suggestions  as  should  induce  their  brethren 
to  exchange  the  degrading  occupations  that  they  were  en- 
gaged in  for  honorable  trades.  The  call  aroused  great 
enthusiasm  among  Jews  of  foreign  lands,  4  who  knew  noth- 
ing of  the  immediate  cause  of  the  Emperor's  action  or  of 
his  own  feelings  towards  his  Jewish  subjects,  which  were 
anything  but  friendly. 5  The  assembly  opened  on  July 

1  Leon  Kahn,  Les  Juifs  a  Paris,  86.     Paris,  1889. 

'Graetz,  Geschichte  der  Juden,  XI,  268. 

'  Guizot  in  Eevue  des  Deux  Mondes  for  July,  1867,  18-20.  Quoted 
in  Graetz's  Geschichte  der  Juden,  XI,  620. 

*"Keform  des  Judenthums  in  Frankreich  und  Italien,"  Sulamith, 
II,  3  ff.  Dessau,  1807. 

8  Kahn,  Les  Juifs  d  Paris,  88. 


28  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

26,  1806,  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  There  were  110  notables 
present,  who  had  been  selected  by  the  prefects  of  the 
various  departments  of  France,  of  the  German  provinces 
that  had  come  under  French  rule,  and  of  Italy  which  was 
likewise  under  French  suzerainty.  Abraham  Furtado  of 
Bordeaux  was  elected  presiding  officer.  The  most  dis- 
tinguished man  of  the  assembly  was  David  Sinzheim,  rabbi 
in  Strasburg. 1  The  Emperor  submitted  to  the  second 
meeting  on  July  29  twelve  questions  for  discussion  and 
decision.  These  questions  were : — 

1.  Are  Jews  permitted  to  marry  several  wives? 

2.  Does  the  Jewish  law  permit  divorce  ?     Is  such  divorce 
valid  without  the  sanction  of  the  civil  court  or  if  obtained 
by  laws  which  are  in  opposition  to  the  French  code? 

3.  May  a  Jewess  marry  a  Christian  or  a  Jew  a  Chris- 
tian woman?  or  does  the  Jewish  law  permit  marriages  be- 
tween Jews  only? 

4.  Do  the  Jews  consider  the  French  their  brethren,  or 
do  they  look  upon  them  as  aliens? 

5.  In  either  case,  what  duties  does  their  law  prescribe 
for  the  Jews  towards  Frenchmen  of  other  faiths? 

6.  Do  the   Jews  who  are  natives  of  France  and  are 
treated  as  French  citizens  by  the  law  look  upon  France 
as  their  fatherland?     Do  they  consider  themselves  in  duty 
bound  to  defend  it?     Are  they  obliged  to  obey  the  laws 
and  to  satisfy  all  the  demands  of  the  civil  code? 

7.  Who  appoints  the  rabbis? 

8.  What  magisterial  power  do  the  rabbis  exercise  over 
the  Jews  and  what  judicial  authority  do  they  possess? 

9.  Does  their  authority  rest  upon  written  laws  or  upon 
tradition  ? 

10.  Are  there  trades  which  are  forbidden  the  Jew  by  his 
religion  ? 

11.  Does  their  law  forbid  the  Jews  to  exact  usury  from 
their  co-religionists? 

1  Sulamith,  I,  183. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT       29 

12.  Does  it  forbid  or  permit  them  to  exact  usury  from 
their  non- Jewish  fellow-citizens? 

It  was  notably  the  third  question  which  aroused  the 
most  active  and  heated  discussion.  It  was  in  this  debate 
that  the  statement  was  made  for  the  first  time  in  a  public 
assembly  that  Judaism  had  been  distorted  frequently  by 
rabbinical  enactments  in  the  course  of  the  centuries, x  and 
that  it  was  necessary  to  return  to  the  Bible  as  the  source 
and  basis  of  religious  practice.  Such  an  utterance  indi- 
cated clearly  that  a  new  era  had  dawned,  and  that  the 
people  were  growing  restive  under  the  yoke  of  rabbinism. 
The  question  was  answered  evasively  to  the  effect  that 
marriage  between  Israelites  and  Christians  contracted 
according  to  the  laws  of  the  ''Code  Civil"  are  from  a  civil 
standpoint  binding  and  valid,  and  although  such  marriages 
cannot  be  invested  with  the  religious  forms,  they  shall  not 
entail  disciplinary  punishment  (anathema2).  The  other 
questions  were  readily  and  satisfactorily  answered.  The 
replies  of  the  assembly  showed  clearly  that  the  Jews  were 
not  a  "nation  within  the  nation,"3  that  their  non-partici-- 
pation  in  the  past  in  the  interests  of  the  nation  was  not 
their  own  fault,  but  was  due  to  the  repressive  legislation 
to  which  they  had  been  subject,  that  they  were  distinct 
from  their  compatriots  in  their  religion  only.  The  answers 
were  satisfactory  to  the  Emperor.  Desiring  to  give  them 
the  force  of  law  and  yet  not  wishing  to  issue  a  special  de- 
cree for  that  purpose,  he  determined  to  attain  this  end 
through  the  agency  of  a  Jewish  legislative  body  to  be 
known  as  the  Great  Synhedrin.  In  a  letter  dated  August 
23,  1806,  he  wrote  to  his  minister  De  Champagne  that  it  is 

1  Gesammelte  ActenstucTce  uber  die  Verbesserung  des  Zustandes  der 
Juden.  Herausgegeben  von  Alexander  Bran,  I,  342.  Hamburg,  1807. 

2Mielziner,  The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  97.  Cin- 
cinnati, 1884. 

8  An  expression  which  had  been  used  by  Napoleon  himself,  ' '  une 
nation  dans  la  nation' '•  see  Kahn,  op.  cit.,  88. 


30  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

his  purpose  "to  constitute  the  Assembly  actually  gathered 
in  Paris  into  a  Great  Synhedrin,  whose  acts  shall  be  placed 
beside  those  of  the  Talmud  as  articles  of  faith  and  prin- 
ciples of  religious  legislation."  This  body  was  to  consist 
of  seventy-one  members,  like  the  great  Synhedrin  of  old 
in  the  land  of  Palestine.  The  assembly  of  notables  was 
directed  to  make  all  preparations  for  the  session  of  the 
Synhedrin.  On  October  6,  1806,  Napoleon  issued  a  decree 
in  Hebrew,  French,  and  Italian,  convening  the  Great  Syn- 
hedrin. The  sessions  of  the  Synhedrin  opened  on  Febru- 
ary 9,  1807 ;  its  organization  was  on  the  lines  of  the  ancient 
Synhedrin,  the  presiding  officers  being  called  nassi,  db  ~beth 
din,  and  chakam.  Its  meetings  continued  through  one 
month,  final  adjournment  taking  place  on  March  9.  It 
accomplished  little  beyond  placing  the  seal  of  its  approval 
upon  the  answers  of  the  assembly  of  notables.  It  was  un- 
doubtedly Napoleon's  love  for  the  sensational  and  the 
spectacular  that  prompted  him  to  attempt  this  revival  of 
the  old  Jewish  legislative  body  on  French  soil.  The  French 
Synhedrin  requires  mention  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
movement  because,  even  if  its  members  did  not  declare  in 
so  many  words  the  repudiation  of  the  traditional  belief  in 
the  return  to  Palestine  and  all  the  doctrines  dependent  up- 
on this,  yet  their  answer  to  the  fourth  and  sixth  questions, 
to  the  effect  that  they  looked  upon  Frenchmen  as  their 
brethren  and  France  as  their  native  country,  implied  this, 
and  the  answer  to  the  eighth  question  indicated  that  they 
considered  rabbinical  jurisdiction  in  civil  and  judicial  mat- 
ters a  thing  of  the  past.  Still,  in  spite  of  this  approach 
to  the  spirit  of  the  reform  movement,  this  latter  made  but 
little  headway  among  the  French  communities  beyond  some 
aesthetic  improvements  in  the  service  here  and  there ;  even 
these  external  reforms  wt,re  slow  in  being  adopted,  for  as 
late  as  1839  the  author  of  the  famous  Tsarphati  letters 
declared,  "If  reforms  are  not  introduced  the  Jews  will 
either  become  absolutely  indifferent  or  enter  the  Christian 


THE  BEGINOTNGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT       31 

Church. ' ' l  Rabbinical  Judaism  continued  to  be  officially 
recognized;  the  reform  movement  did  not  make  great 
progress  there,  and  the  result  was  much  as  Tsarphati  pre- 
dicted. 


Early  Reforms  in  Berlin.     The  Science  o/  Judaism. 

The  famous  edict  of  March  11,  1812,  issued  by  the  King 
of  Prussia,  Frederick  William  III,  at  the  initiative  of  his 
noble  and  liberal-minded  prime  minister  Hardenberg,  was 
interpreted  by  the  Jews  of  that  country,  and  notably  by 
those  living  in  the  city  of  Berlin,  as  the  beginning  of  a  new 
period  of  light  and  freedom.  And  in  truth  they  were 
justified  in  entertaining  this  feeling.  In  unmistakable 
terms  this  emancipatory  edict  removed  from  the  Jewish  in- 
habitants of  the  Prussian  state  the  restrictions  and  wrongs 
of  centuries.  It  declared  them  to  be  natives,  and  raised 
them  to  the  rank  of  Prussian  citizenship  on  the  condition 
that  they  took  family  names  and  employed  the  German  or 
any  other  living  language  in  place  of  the  jargon  in  their 
daily  lives  and  transactions.  It  gave  them  permission  to 
settle  anywhere  in  the  land  and  to  acquire  real  estate;  it 
made  them  eligible  for  teachers'  positions  and  for  com- 
munal offices :  all  restrictive  trade  conditions  were  abolished, 
as  well  as  all  special  taxes  which  they  had  been  compelled 
to  pay  as  Jews.  In  return  they  had  to  assume  all  the  obli- 
gations of  citizenship,  such  as  taxes  and  military  service. 
Rabbinical  jurisdiction  was  to  cease.  There  were  a  number 
of  inhibitory  paragraphs  also,  but  the  general  tendency  of 
the  edict  was  such  as  made  for  freedom  in  so  marked  a 
degree,  that  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Jews  of  Berlin 
looked  upon  it  almost  in  the  light  of  their  magna  charta; 
the  elders  of  the  Jewish  community,  David  Hirsch,  Bendix, 
Friedlander,  and  Gumpertz,  addressed  a  letter  of  thankful 

1  Quoted  in  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  Ill,  151,  from  the  Courrier  de  la  Moselle. 


32  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

appreciation  to  the  king. 1  True,  the  edict  did  not  touch 
the  religious  affairs  of  the  Jews  further  than  to  demand 
that  rabbinical  jurisdiction  cease;  it  left  expressly  for 
future  consideration  the  ecclesiastical  conditions  and  the 
education  of  the  Jews,  for  the  regulation  of  which  "men 
of  the  Jewish  faith  who  enjoy  the  public  confidence  because 
of  their  attainments  and  uprightness"2  were  to  be  drawn 
into  consultation.  Here  again,  as  in  Westphalia,  we  find 
that  the  acquisition  of  civil  emancipation  was  the  begin- 
ning of  active  efforts  for  religious  emancipation.  Shortly 
after  the  promulgation  of  this  edict  David  Friedlander 
wrote  a  pamphlet,  entitled  ' '  On  the  Changes  in  the  Service 
in  the  Synagogues  made  necessary  by  the  new  Organiza- 
tion of  the  Jewish  Schools  in  the  Prussian  States. " 3  In 
this  pamphlet  he  indicated  the  lines  along  which  the  relig- 
ious and  educational  affairs  of  the  Jews  ought  to  be 
directed.  He  dwelt  particularly  on  the  necessity  of  a  re- 
organization of  the  schools  and  a  reform  of  the  service; 
the  chief  features  of  the  latter  were  to  be  the  abolition  of 
all  prayers  having  a  national  Jewish  coloring  and  the  in- 
troduction of  the  German  as  the  language  of  the  service. 
This  publication  met  with  decided  disapproval  on  the  part 
of  the  rabbinical  Jews,  who  were  opposed  to  any  and  every 
change  in  the  ritual  or  the  customs;  the  king  to  whom 
Friedlander  had  submitted  a  copy  of  the  pamphlet  intended 
to  answer  the  author  to  the  effect  that  he  would  give  his 
recommendations  consideration  on  the  condition  that  they 
involved  no  innovations.  Frederick  William  was  essentially 
a  reactionary;  he  was  prevented  from  answering  in  this 
wise  by  Hardenberg,  who  showed  him  the  meritorious 

1  Ludwig   Geiger,    Geschichte   der   Juden   in   Berlin,   145.     Berlin, 
1871. 

2  Graetz,  GescMclite  der  Juden,  XI,  317. 

8  Ueber  die  durch  die  neue  Organisation  der  Judenschulen  in  den 
preussischen  Staaten  nothwendig  gewordene  TJmbildung  ihres  Gottes- 
dienstes  in  den  Synagogen.  Berlin,  1812. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT       33 

points  in  Friedlander's  program.  Hence  the  prohibi- 
tion against  making  any  reforms  or  innovations  was  not 
issued;  still  it  was  only  delayed;  after  Hardenberg's  death 
it  appeared. 

The  first  active  step  towards  reform  in  Berlin  was  taken 
in  1815.  In  the  Prussian  capital,  as  in  Westphalia,  the  re- 
form movement  was  inaugurated  by  public-spirited,  prac- 
tical men.  Here,  too,  as  there,  the  movement  arose  from 
the  desire  to  make  the  public  services  decorous  and  intel- 
ligible. Israel  Jacobson,  who  had  removed  from  Cassel  to 
Berlin,  established  such  a  service  in  his  own  home  on  the 
Feast  of  Weeks  in  the  year  1815  on  the  occasion  of  the 
confirmation  of  his  son;  this  service  was  accompanied  by 
organ  music,  singing  by  a  choir,  a  German  sermon,  and 
prayers  in  the  vernacular. 1  The  room  in  Jacobson 's  house 
being  too  small  to  accommodate  all  who  wished  to  attend, 
Jacob  Herz  Beer,  a  wealthy  banker,  father  of  the  celebrated 
composer  Meyerbeer,  instituted  a  similar  service  in  his 
home. 2  The  sermons  were  delivered  by  talented  young 
men,  Isaac  Auerbach,  Eduard  Kley,  Leopold  Zunz,  Isaac 
Noa  Mannheimer,  and  C.  S.  Giinsburg, 3  three  of  whom 
became  commanding  figures  in  later  years,  Kley  as  one  of 
the  founders  and  preachers  of  the  reform  congregation  of 
Hamburg,  whose  story  will  be  recounted  shortly,  Zunz  as 
a  master  of  Jewish  scientific  research  and  one  of  the  great- 
est of  scholars,  and  Mannheimer  as  the  famed  preacher  of 
the  Viennese  congregation.  The  services  were  attended 
by  hundreds  from  among  the  cultured  classes  of  Berlin 
Jewry.  The  government,  however,  was  not  in  favor  of 

^Sulamith,  II,  66. 

2  Ibid,,  68. 

8  The  first  Jewish  prayer-book  entirely  in  the  German  language 
was  issued  in  1817  by  two  of  these  young  men,  Kley  and  Giinsburg; 
It  was  entitled,  Die  deutsche  Synagoge  oder  Ordnung  des  Gottes- 
dienstes  fiir  die  Sabbath-  und  Festtage  des  ganzen  Jdhres  zum  Ge- 
brauche  der  Gemeinden,  die  sich  der  deutschen  Gebete  bedienen. 
Berlin,  1817. 
3 


34  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

innovations  of  any  kind  or  anywhere.  Notably  was  the 
dissatisfaction  of  cultured  Jews  with  their  inherited  faith 
agreeable  to  the  king,  for  this  led  frequently  to  an  abandon- 
ment of  Judaism  and  the  adoption  of  Christianity. 
Further,  the  rabbis  of  the  old  school  and  their  followers 
were  but  too  ready  to  appeal  to  the  government  against 
the  reformers.  These  latter  had  not  formed  a  new  organ- 
ization. They  simply  conducted  these  private  services  in 
private  homes,  which  any  one  was  welcome  to  attend.  But 
they  were  not  left  unmolested  long.  In  1817  the  govern- 
ment ordered  all  private  synagogues  to  be  closed.  This 
was  the  first  definite  victory  of  the  adherents  of  rabbinical 
Judaism.  The  order  was  directed  against  the  two  private 
temples,  Jacobson's  and  Beer's.  This  is  the  earliest  in- 
stance of  that  disastrous  policy  of  calling  in  the  aid  of  the 
government  to  suppress  the  reformers  which  was  the  cause 
of  so  many  scandals  during  the  next  three  decades.  When 
the  orthodox  leaders  saw  that  the  reformers  were  likely  to 
succeed,  or  in  fact  had  succeeded,  in  establishing  a  foot- 
hold, they  preferred  charges  with  the  government  against 
the  reformers  as  being  fomenters  of  disturbances  by  the 
introduction  of  innovations.  Reference  need  be  made  only 
to  the  Geiger-Tiktin  affair  at  Breslau, 1  the  cause  celebre 
of  Lb'wi,  the  reform  rabbi  of  Furth  in  Bavaria, 2  the  atti- 
tude of  Bernays,  the  orthodox  rabbinical  chief  of  Ham- 
burg, towards  the  reform  congregation  of  that  city, 3  and 
the  disgraceful  proceeding  of  some  Jews  of  orthodox  pro- 
clivities against  Leopold  Low  when  rabbi  of  Papa,  in  Hun- 
gary. 4  But  it  was  not  only  the  orthodox  party  that  sinned 
in  this  respect;  the  reformers  too  were  guilty  occasionally 
of  compassing  their  object  by  the  help  of  the  civil  power; 

1  Geiger,  Die  letzten  zwei  Jahre,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  1-51. 
Ansprache  an  meine  Gemeinde,  ibid.,  52-112. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  I,  457;  III,  244;  V,  610;  VIII,  259. 
•Ibid.,  VI,  108. 

.,  XI,  251;  XIII,  89. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT       35 

fairness,  however,  demands  the  statement  that  the  ortho- 
dox party  was  given  to  this  course  far  more  than  the 
reformers.  But  to  return  to  the  case  in  hand.  Beer's 
private  temple  evaded  the  immediate  consequences  of  the 
decree  of  1817  by  the  peculiar  circumstance  that,  owing  to 
the  fact  that  repairs  were  being  made  in  the  chief  syna- 
gogue, this  private  temple  was  used  as  the  temporary  com- 
munal house  of  worship.  The  struggle  was  now  on  between 
the  old  and  the  new.  The  service  in  the  temple  met  with 
great  favor  on  the  part  of  many,  notably  the  young. 
However,  the  orthodox  party  would  none  of  it.  The  rab- 
binate of  Berlin,  chief  of  which  was  Meyer  Simon  Weyl, 
was  unalterably  opposed  to  any  reform;  they  would  not 
even  sanction  the  appointment  of  German  preachers  (as 
contradistinguished  from  the  rabbis),  whose  sole  duty  was 
to  be  the  preaching  of  sermons,  while  the  rabbis  were  to 
continue  to  perform  the  same  functions  and  wield  the  same 
authority  as  of  old.  A  commission  was  appointed  by  the 
Minister  of  Public  "Worship  to  suggest  a  possible  solution 
of  the  difficulty.  A  number  of  compromises  were  sug- 
gested, such  as  to  make  the  synagogue  which  was  now 
undergoing  repair  large  enough  to  accommodate  all  the 
Jews  of  all  tendencies  of  religious  thought;  and  thus  to 
have  practically  two  synagogues  under  one  roof,  one  ortho- 
dox and  the  other  reform ;  another  suggestion  was  to  have 
two  services  on  Sabbath  and  holidays ;  first  a  service  along 
traditional  lines,  and  after  that  another  service  with  Ger- 
man prayers  and  a  German  sermon.  This  latter  sugges- 
tion met  with  the  approval  of  the  Minister  of  Public  Wor- 
ship. The  orthodox  party,  sure  of  the  sympathy  of  the 
king,  appealed  to  him;  they  found  a  ready  hearing,  and 
the  monarch  issued  a  decree  (Cabinetsordre)  on  Dec.  9, 
1823,  commanding  "that  the  divine  services  of  the  Jews 
must  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  traditional  ritual 
and  without  the  slightest  innovation  in  language,  cere- 
monies, prayers,  or  songs. "  1  A  decided  reaction  had  set  in 
1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VI,  393.  Geiger,  Geschichte  der  Juden  in  Berlin,  234. 


36  THE  KEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

in  all  respects.     The  high  hopes  that  had  been  aroused  by 
the  edict  of  1812  in  Prussia  and  by  similar  emancipatory 
decrees  in  other  German  states  had  been  shattered  by  the 
events  that  had  taken  place  after  the  downfall  of  Napoleon 
and  the  meeting  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna.     In  several 
parts  of  Germany  the  Hews  had  been  subjected  to  outrages 
reminiscent  of  mediaeval  days ;  the  hep  hep  cry  resounded 
in  the  streets  of  cities  like  Frankfort  and  Wiirzburg.     This 
reactionary  spirit  made  itself  felt  also  in  the  movement  for 
religious  reform.     The  year  1823  is  marked  by  a  number 
of  restrictive   edicts  besides   the    one   just   mentioned;    a 
rescript  of  March  11  of  that  year  declared  that ' '  the  Jewish 
religion  was  only  tolerated,  and  that  its  confessors  have  no 
ecclesiastical  officials, ' '  and  similarly  the  general  legislation 
for  Prussia  promulgated  for  that  same  year  stated  that 
1 '  Jewish  rabbis  are  not  instructors  of  youth,  and  cannot  be 
looked  upon  as  religious  teachers  in  the  same  sense  as  Chris- 
tian clergymen,  because  they  have  no  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing such  as  the  Christian  clergy  have."     All  this  meant 
the  absolute  triumph  of  the  orthodox  party;  the  private 
temples  were  closed;  every  innovation  in  the  service  and 
preaching  in  the  vernacular  were 1  forbidden :  efforts  in 
the  cause  of  reform  in  the  chief  city  of  Prussia  were  inter- 
mitted for  a  number  of  years.     The  orthodox  element  was 
too  short-sighted  to  see  that  they  were  playing  directly 
into  the  hands  of  the  orthodox  Christian  king ;  he  had  for- 
bidden innovations  in  the  Jewish  service  on  the  ground  that 
with  the  rise  of  Christianity  Judaism  had  ceased  to  be  a 
living  religion,  that  it  had  persisted  through  the  centuries 
as  a  dead  stock  and  only  as  such  must  it  continue ;  that  to 
permit  the  introduction  of  reforms  and  innovations  would 
be  equivalent  to  granting  that  there  was  still  some  life  in 
the  religion.     The  victory  of  the  orthodox  party  was  costly 
indeed;  it  was  during  the  years  immediately  succeeding 
that  the  conversions  of  Jews  to  Christianity  took  place  in 
1  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  17,  note. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT       37 

great  numbers;  this  would  certainly  have  been  prevented 
in  part  had  the  reform  movement  not  been  stifled  in  the 
bud. x     The  cultured  Jew  found  the  synagogue  unattract- 
ive and  its  services  unsympathetic;  rabbinism  belonged  to 
a  past  age ;  he  became  lost  to  Judaism  altogether  either  by 
absolute  indifference  or  by  being  converted  to  Christianity. 
This  condition  of  affairs  was  made  possible  further  by 
the  fact  that  the  Jews  had  little  or  no  knowledge  of  their 
own  past  and  of  the  lofty  achievements  of  the  Jewish  spirit 
in  the  ages  agone.     For  the  great  mass  of  even  the  so- 
called  cultured  Jews  Judaism  spelt  merely  a  barren  legal- 
ism  ;  it  was  simply  the  repository  of  some  worn-out  customs 
that  were  no  longer  harmonious  with  the  new  spirit  that 
had  breathed  upon  the  world ;  even  the  reformers  had  been 
impelled  to  their  acts,  not  by  the  thought  of  Jewish  develop- 
ment, but  by  the  artificial  motive  of  making  the  external 
expression  of  the  faith  respond  to  an  aesthetic  longing. 
That  Judaism  had  an  intellectual  development  and  that 
even  during  the  Christian  centuries,  the  Jewish  spirit  had 
brought  forth  many  remarkable  products  were  facts  un- 
known not  only  to  the  government  (which,  upon  the  in- 
formation by  a  Jewish  Philistine,  had  branded  the  rabbis 
contemptuously  as  "  Kauseherwaehter, "  as  though  the  in- 
spection of  meats  were  all  of  Judaism,  and  it  was  there- 
fore unworthy  of  a  place  among  the  religions  recognized 
by  the  state),   not  only  to  the  Christian  populace  that 
viewed  the  Jews  and  Judaism  only  through  the  glass  of 
prejudice,  but  also  to  the  great  body  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves.    The  governmental  interference  with  internal  Jew- 
ish affairs  for  the  stifling  of  the  reform  movement  and  the 
reactionary  events  of  1817  and  the  following  years  but 
accentuated  this.     Then  it  was  that  a  number  of  young 
men  conceived  the  correct  idea  that  salvation  could  come 
only  from  within,  that  the  Jews  and  the  non- Jews  must  be 
made  acquainted  with  what  Judaism,  its  history  and  its 
SSamter,  Judentaufen  im  19  Jahrhundert,  30.     Berlin,  1906. 


38  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

literature,  really  were,  and  that  only  if  the  science  of  Juda- 
ism (die  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums)  were  made  the 
basis  of  reform  would  the  new  movement  have  stability. 
These  young  men,  some  fifty  in  number,  under  the  guidance 
of  Leopold  Zunz,  Moses  Moser,  and  Eduard  Ganz,  founded 
in  1819  in  Berlin  "The  Society  for  the  Advancement  of 
the  Science  of  Judaism"  (Verein  fur  Cultur  und  die 
Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums 1 ) .  Although  this  Society 
was  able  to  carry  out  but  a  fraction  of  its  ambitious  pro- 
gram, which  included  the  foundation  of  a  Jewish  insti- 
tute of  learning,  the  building  up  of  a  great  Jewish  library, 
the  establishment  of  a  magazine  embodying  the  results  of 
the  research  into  Jewish  history  and  literature ; 2  although, 
further,  the  high  hopes  of  the  founders  ended  in  disap- 
pointment and  temporary  despair  with  the  dissolution  of 
the  Society  in  1824,  yet  had  they  struck  the  true  note,  and 
its  watchword,  ' '  The  Science  of  Judaism, ' '  was  to  become 
the  motto  of  the  second  movement  for  reform  in  Judaism 
in  Germany  under  the  leadership  of  Geiger,  Holdheim, 
Einhorn,  Philippson,  Stein,  Hirsch,  and  the  other  scholarly 
guides  among  the  second  generation  of  reformers.  Zunz, 
who  had  begun  life  as  a  preacher  in  the  private  reform 
temple  of  Jacob  Herz  Beer,  applied  all  his  great  powers  to 
the  field  of  research  after  this  temple  had  been  closed  by 
the  government. 3  His  first  great  literary  work  was  really 

1  Because  of  the  special  meaning  which  the  term  "science"  has 
assumed  in  English  it  is  difficult  to  render  exactly  the  German  phrase 
"Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums ";  if  the  word  "science"  be  under- 
stood in  its  original  and  larger  meaning  of  knowledge  and  not  in  the 
more  restricted  significance  of  physical  science,  the  phrase  "  Science 
of  Judaism"  may  stand  as  the  equivalent  of  the  German. 

"But  one  volume  of  this  magazine  appeared  with  the  title  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  die  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums.  Berlin,  1823. 

'He  had  won  his  spurs  before  this  as  an  original  investigator  by 
his  study  on  the  great  Jewish  commentator  Eashi,  which  had  ap- 
peared in  the  magazine  mentioned  in  the  previous  note;  his  first 
publication  was  an  essay  on  rabbinical  literature.  Berlin,  1818. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT       39 

the  outcome  of  this  incident;  the  reason  given  for  this 
action  was  that  Judaism,  being  only  a  lifeless  survival  since 
the  rise  of  Christianity,  it  could  put  forth  no  such  new 
shoots  as  preaching  1  and  prayers  in  the  vernacular  or  any 
other  innovations  that  involved  a  departure  from  tradi- 
tional custom  and  usage.  Zunz  undertook  the  task  of 
proving  in  his  work,  ' '  The  Homilies  of  the  Jews ;  Historic- 
ally Developed,"2  the  falsity  of  this  claim;  the  theses  he 
set  out  to  establish  were  that  homiletic  exercises,  such  as 
interpretation  of  Scripture  and  preaching  in  the  vernacu- 
lar, had  been  customary  among  the  Jews  in  many  localities 
at  different  times,  that  the  literary  spirit  had  been  con- 
stantly active,  and  that  Judaism,  far  from  being  a  lifeless 
survival,  had  put  forth  new  shoots  in  age  upon  age,  and 
hence  inferentially  there  was  no  reason  why  it  should  not 
do  so  now. 3  In  this  book 4  Zunz  proved  that  no  one  has 
the  right  "to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  new  prayers; 
from  the  time  of  the  Great  Synod  to  the  present  day  the 
Jewish  liturgy  has  been  constantly  enriched  by  Soferim, 
synhedrial  authorities,  teachers  of  the  Mishnah,  Emoras, 
Gaonim,  Paitanim,  and  rabbis,  by  poets,  cantors,  congre- 

1  An  interesting  occurrence  illustrating  this  attitude  of  the  Prussian 
authorities  took  place  as  late  as  the  year  1847.  In  the  columns  of  the 
Eeform  Zeitung,  a  paper  published  by  A.  Eebenstein  (Aaron  Bern- 
stein) in  the  interests  of  the  Jewish  reform  movement,  a  sermon  de- 
livered in  a  Jewish  house  of  worship  was  spoken  of  in  complimentary 
terms.  The  censor  struck  out  the  word  sermon  (Predigt)  on  the  ground 
that  only  religious  discourses  delivered  in  a  Christian  church  could 
rightly  be  called  sermons  (Diese  Bezeichnung  ist  der  christlichen 
Kirche  eigenthumlich  und  vorbehalten)  "Eine  Eeliquie  aus  der 
Censurzeit."  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LVII  (1894),  424. 

3  Die  Gottesdienstlichen  Vortrdge  der  Juden,  historisch  Entwiclcelt. 
Berlin,  1832. 

« Bitter,  Samuel  Holdheim,  82.    Berlin,  1865. 

*  See  Zunz '  interesting  statement  regarding  the  genesis  of  this  work 
in  "Ein  Besuch  bei  Leopold  Zunz/'  by  Adolf  Frankl-Grun.  A.  Z. 
d.  J.,  LX  (1896),  487. 


40  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

gational  leaders,  cabbalists. *  .  .  .  Prayer  in  the  vernacular 
was  permitted  by  all  authorities,  yea,  even  commanded  in 
certain  instances. 2  .  .  .  The  most  important  part  of  these 
improvements  in  the  service  consists  in  the  return  from 
abuse  to  normality,  from  the  dead  to  the  living  form. 
Hence  resistance  to  reforms  in  this  field  is  to  be  looked  for 
from  prejudice  and  ignorance  rather  than  from  true  in- 
sight. ' ' 3  The  conclusion  at  which  he  arrives  as  the  result 
of  his  researches  is  that  reform  is  the  mission  of  the  present 
generation,  whose  work  it  must  be  to  discover  the  real  needs 
of  the  present  and  assert  their  dominance  in  the  political 
situation  of  the  Jews,  in  the  field  of  learning  and  in  the 
religious  province,  and,  further,  to  embody  these  progres- 
sive ideas  in  institutions.  4  The  closing  paragraph  of  this 
book  discloses  its  purpose  most  clearly,  and  may  be  quoted 
as  a  classical  expression  of  the  hopes  and  expectations  of  the 
early  reformers;  "the  closest  attention  in  the  movement  for 
improvements  in  the  service  of  the  synagogue  should  be 
given  to  the  removal  of  faults  and  abuses,  and  to  the  rein- 
troduction  of  regular  sermons.  Let  the  speaker  be  called 
what  he  will,  preacher  or  rabbi,  teacher  or  orator,  so  long 
as  he  understands  how  to  expound  the  word  of  God  from 
the  Bible  and  the  Hagadah,  to  extract  the  pure  gold  from 
old  and  new  fields,  to  teach  the  present  generation  its  true 
work  and  to  reach  all  hearts  by  skillful  speech.  Then  the 
divine  spirit  will  return  to  thy  temples,  0  daughter  of 
Zion,  and  will  become  manifest  in  deeds  flowing  from 
words  of  enthusiasm.  The  rekindled  spark  will  never  be 
quenched  again;  persecutions  will  only  cause  it  to  flame 
the  more  brightly,  for  reform  and  the  triumph  of  speech 
propounding  reform  are  irrevocable  as  are  the  victories  of 
freedom  and  civilization,  the  civil  emancipation  of  the 

1  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge,  477. 
3  Ibid.,  478. 
8  Ibid.,  479. 
'Ibid.,  475. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT       41 

Jews  and  their  scientific  culture. ' ' *  Zunz  performed  a 
great  service  to  the  reform  cause  by  this  book:  he  gave 
the  movement  a  scientific  basis,  and  pointed  the  way  for 
future  workers. 2  Although  modern  Jewish  research  had 
produced  some  results  before  the  appearance  of  this  book, 3 
yet  will  it  be  considered  always  the  first  great  achievement 
of  the  Jewish  literary  renaissance  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury. Clearly  as  the  book  proved  the  fact  of  a  constant 
development  in  Judaism,  yet  were  its  effects  further  reach- 
ing than  the  triumphant  establishment  of  its  thesis  that 
this  inner  development  in  Judaism  demanded  and  justified 
sermons  in  the  vernacular,  necessary  changes  in  the  liturgy, 
and  corresponding  reforms.  The  scientific  spirit  was  re- 
vived, and  through  the  influence  and  devotion  of  Zunz  and 
such  other  kindred  spirits  as  Rapoport,  Luzzato,  Geiger, 
Krochmal,  Reggio,  and  many  others,  Judaism  celebrated  a 
literary  rebirth;  these  investigators  into  the  products  of 
the  Jewish  spirit  achieved  the  purpose  set  forth  in  the 
program  of  the  "Verein  fur  Cultur  und  die  Wissenschaft 
des  Judenthums,"  viz.,  "to  bring  the  Jews  into  harmony 
with  the  age  and  the  countries  in  which  they  live  by  means 
of  a  development  proceeding  from  within. ' ' 4 

The  Hamburg  Temple. 

The  earliest  attempt  at  reform  in  Berlin  ended,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  failure.  The  orthodox  party  had  succeeded 
in  suppressing  completely  the  efforts  of  the  "innovators" 
with  the  aid  of  the  government.  It  was  a  Pyrrhic  victory, 
however.  As  a  result,  Judaism  suffered  great  defections 

1  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge,  481. 

2Ritter,  op.  cit.,  81. 

'Rapoport's  biographies  of  Saadia,  Chananel,  Nathan  Hababli, 
Elazar  Kalir,  Nissim,  and  Hai  Gaon  had  appeared  in  the  periodical 
BiTcTcure  Haittim  in  1828-1831,  and  Luzzato  'a  treatise  on  the  Aramaic 
translation  of  the  Bible  in  1830. 

*  Geiger,  Geschichte  der  Juden  in  'Berlin,  251. 


42       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

from  its  ranks.  Keform  was  an  absolute  need,  but  the 
rabbis  of  the  traditional  school  were  blind  to  the  need. 
Their  signal  defeat  seemed  to  lame  the  energies  of  the  pro- 
gressionists, and  it  was  years  before  another  active  effort 
was  made  in  the  Prussian  capital  to  organize  a  second 
movement  along  similar  lines.  But  the  ideas  that  swayed 
the  Berlin  reformers  were  not  confined  to  any  one  place. 
They  were  in  the  air,  as  it  were;  the  necessity  was  being 
felt  generally  for  an  intelligent  expression  of  the  under- 
lying principles  of  the  faith  in  accordance  with  the  culture 
of  the  time.  Thus,  for  example,  although  preaching  in 
German  had  been  forbidden  in  Berlin,  it  continued  at 
Dessau ;  and  it  was  not  long  ere  the  practice  became  quite 
general  in  Southern  Germany;  as  early  as  1814  the  con- 
firmation ceremony  1  had  been  introduced  by  the  Jewish 
congregations  of  Denmark  at  the  command  of  the  govern- 
ment; in  Austria  the  candidates  for  the  rabbinical  office 
were  required  to  have  a  university  education  by  a  decree 
issued  in  the  year  1820,  and  furthermore  the  use  of  the 
vernacular  was  commanded;  sporadic  though  these  phe- 
nomena were,  yet  were  they  all  indicative  of  the  general 
unrest  that  was  agitating  Jewry  and  the  desire  for  litur- 
gical reforms  of  some  kind. 

Of  all  the  early  attempts  that  of  the  so-called  Hamburg 
Temple  congregation  aroused  the  most  widespread  atten- 
tion; several  of  the  most  important  contests  between  the 
old  and  the  new  school  were  waged  about  this  as  the  storm 
centre.  In  1817  Eduard  Kley,  who  had  been  one  of  the 
preachers  of  the  private  reform  temple  of  Jacob  Herz  Beer 
in  Berlin,  had  removed  from  that  city  to  Hamburg  to  accept 
the  post  of  director  of  the  Jewish  free  school  in  the  Han- 
seatic  city.  He  began  to  agitate  for  a  reformed  service 

1  For  an  account  of  the  introduction  of  the  ceremony  of  confirma- 
tion into  Judaism  see  the  author's  Confirmation  in  the  Synagogue, 
Year  Book  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  No.  1, 
43-58. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT       43 

almost  immediately,  and  finding  a  number  of  sympathizers, 
organized  together  with  these  a  reform  society;  they  at 
once  took  active  steps  for  the  erection  of  a  house  of  worship, 
and  on  October  18,  1818,  dedicated  the  building  that  be- 
came famous  as  the  Hamburg  Temple.  The  bitterest  oppo- 
sition was  engendered.  The  three  rabbis  of  Hamburg  set 
all  things  in  motion  to  suppress  the  new  movement.  The 
Hamburg  reform  movement  is  of  especial  importance,  be- 
cause it  was  the  occasion  of  the  first  definite  official  clash 
between  the  two  tendencies  in  Judaism.  The  issue  was  not 
as  clear-cut  as  it  might  have  been  because  the  reformers 
hedged  considerably;  although  ostensibly  a  protest  against 
rabbinism,  yet  when  the  test  came  they  sought  to  justify 
their  reforms  from  the  rabbinical  standpoint  instead  of 
standing  fully  and  uncompromisingly  upon  the  right  of 
instituting  such  changes  of  custom  and  interpretation  as 
the  modified  requirements  of  their  day  demanded. *  The 
Talmud  was  the  norm  of  authority  for  rabbinism;  for 
centuries  Judaism  had  been  held  to  be  synonymous  with 
Talmudism ;  it  excites  little  wonder  therefore  that  the  early 
reformers  sought  to  find  Talmudical  and  rabbinical  support 
for  their  innovations ;  it  was  an  artificial  attempt ; 2  the 
spirit  of  the  new  time  was  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  rab- 
binism, and  the  religious  view-point  of  the  Jew,  the  eman- 
cipated citizen  of  the  state,  was  altogether  different  from 
that  of  his  forefather,  the  excluded  pariah  of  the  ghetto. 

1Well  expressed  by  Holdheim,  "Der  Talmud  spricht  aus  seinem 
Zeitbewusstsein  und  fur  dasselbe  hatte  er  Eecht;  ich  spreche  aus 
einem  hoheren  Bewusstsein  meiner  Zeit  und  fiir  dasselbe  habe  ich 
Eecht."  Das  Ceremonialgesetz  im  Messiasreich,  50.  Schwerin,  1845. 

3  See  L.  Philippson's  clear  exposition  of  this  point.  A.  Z.  d.  J.t 
VIII  (1844),  461;  cf.  also  Holdheim's  critique  of  FrankePs  article 
on  Beformbestrebung  undt  Emancipation,  86.  Schwerin,  1845. 
Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  im  Deutschland,  II,  30,  159,  166.  Geiger, 
W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  349,  V,  53,  234;  Nachgelassene  Schriftev,  I,  93,  96; 
Stein,  ProtoJcolle  der  dritten  Versammlung  deutschen  Babbiner,  117. 
Breslau,  1846. 


44  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Like  all  compromises,  this  too  was  unsatisfactory,  but  it 
was  not  recognized  as  such  till  a  later  day.  The  intro- 
duction of  the  first  reforms  really  sounded  the  death-knell 
of  the  authority  of  the  Talmud  as  the  absolute  rule  for 
Jewish  practice;  years  before  the  reform  movement  took 
shape  life  had  decided  the  question;  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  the  Talmud,  or  rather  its  codification,  the  Shul- 
chan  Aruk,  had  lost  its  hold  as  the  authority  for  many 
Jews;  officially,  it  is  true,  it  was  still  recognized,  and  the 
struggle  promised  to  be  long  and  bitter  ere  its  authority 
would  be  definitely  renounced  by  any  representative  body.  * 
From  our  present  point  of  vantage  we  see  that  the  issue  be- 
tween the  party  of  tradition  and  the  party  of  reform  was 
clear  and  decided;  they  represented  two  incompatible 
tendencies ;  the  former  held  that  every  jot  and  tittle  of  past 
custom  and  practice  had  eternal  validity  and  could  not  be 
changed;  the  latter  declared  that  the  dead  hand  of  the 
past  must  not  be  permitted  to  rest  upon  the  present, 
and  that,  unless  the  expression  of  the  religion  conformed 
with  the  requirements  of  living  men,  these  would  drift 
away  from  its  influence  altogether.  The  one  party  de- 
fended the  principle  of  stability  and  immutableness  in 
religious  practice,  the  other  that  of  progress  and  change. 
But  in  the  formative  years  this  difference  was  not  con- 
sistently adhered  to.  As  just  said,  the  reformers  attempted 
to  base  the  validity  of  their  reforms  on  the  authority  of  the 
Talmud,  thus  showing  that  they  themselves  were  not 
thoroughly  cognizant  of  the  real  significance  of  the  move- 
ment they  were  sponsoring.  They  were  really  struggling 
in  the  dark.  There  was  no  definite  program  founded 
upon  clearly  enunciated  principles.  Reform  in  its  first 
stadium  then  was  an  inadequate  though  honest  effort  to 
meet  the  almost  revolutionary  changes,  that  had  taken  place 

1  This  was  done  by  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Eabbis  at 
the  Rochester  meeting  in  July,  1895;  see  Yearbook  of  Central  Con- 
ference, No.  6,  p.  63. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT        45 

in  Jewry  consequent  upon  the  civil,  social,  and  intellectual 
emancipation  which  had  thrown  them  from  the  isolation  of 
the  ghetto  into  the  life  of  the  world.  The  truth  must  be 
confessed  that  the  men  who  fathered  the  reform  movement 
were  not  equal  to  the  task.  They  had  not  the  philosophical 
breadth  to  comprehend  the  real  significance  of  the  condi- 
tions they  were  attempting  to  meet.  This  grows  very  ap- 
parent from  the  Hamburg  movement.  There  is  no  thor- 
oughgoing definiteness. 1  The  distinctive  features  that 
marked  the  Temple  as  a  departure  from  traditional  lines 
were  for  the  most  part  opportunistic.  These  features 
were— some  changes  in  the  liturgy,  notably  in  the  prayers 
for  the  coming  of  the  personal  Messiah;  the  introduction 
of  German  prayers ; 2  and  the  use  of  the  organ ;  they 
adopted  the  so-called  Portuguese  pronunciation  of  the 
Hebrew  and  abolished  the  traditional  cantillation  employed 
in  the  reading  from  the  Pentateuch  at  the  public  services. 
Here  again  we  note  the  same  fact  as  we  did  in  connection 
with  the  initial  steps  towards  reform  taken  by  Jacobson  at 
Seesen.  The  aestheticization  of  the  service  was  the  seem- 
ing be-all  and  end-all  of  the  work  of  the  reformers.  True, 
the  partial  omission  and  partial  modification  of  the  tradi- 
tional prayers  for  the  coming  of  the  personal  Messiah  and 
the  omission  of  such  liturgical  portions  as  stated  unequivo- 
cally that  the  Jews  regarded  themselves  as  foreigners  in  the 
lands  of  their  sojourn  are  indications  that  there  was  some 
consciousness  of  the  deeper  significance  of  the  changed 
phase  whereon  Judaism  had  entered.  But  even  here  there 
was  not  entire  consistency.  Some  prayers  for  the  restora- 
tion of  Zion  and  the  coming  of  a  deliverer  in  the  person  of 

1Jost,  CulturgescJiichte  zur  neueren  GeschicJite  d.  Israeliten,  HI, 
23. 

2  The  prayer-book  was  entitled  Ordnung  der  offentlichen  Andacht 
fiir  die  Sabbath  und  Festtage  des  ganzen  Jdhres  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des  neuen  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg.  Herausgegeben  von  I.  J. 
Frankel  und  M.  J.  Bresselau.  Hamburg,  5579  (1819). 


46       THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

a  Messiah  were  retained.  In  his  masterly  critique  of  the 
inconsistencies  in  the  Hamburg  Temple  Prayer-Book  Geiger 
says  that  the  position  taken  on  this  point  ' '  looks  entirely  too 
much  like  a  compromise;  there  is  apparent  the  desire  not 
to  surrender  the  old  view  but  to  evade  its  injurious 
effects ; "  *  and  with  deep  insight  he  sums  up  in  a  sentence 
the  merits  and  the  defects  of  this  first  reform  Prayer-Book 
when  he  declares  that  the  principle  which  guided  those  who 
arranged  and  edited  this  new  order  of  prayers  was  "to  re- 
establish the  external  conditions  of  devotion  without  clash- 
ing too  much  with  the  current  views  on  prayer,  and  to  re- 
move such  passages  as  were  in  conflict  with  the  civil  posi- 
tion of  the  Jews ; ' '  there  was  but  little  attempt  at  a  thorough 
reform  of  the  service  by  which  alone  the  demands  of  the 
devout  disposition  could  be  satisfied. 2  The  time  was  out  of 
joint  as  far  as  the  religious  situation  among  the  Jews  was 
concerned,  and  commendable  as  were  the  unselfish  efforts  of 
Kley  and  his  associates,  L.  J.  Riesser,  M.  J.  Bresselau,  S. 
J.  Frankel,  and  others,  still  did  they  have  no  full  grasp  of 
the  principles  involved. 3  Yet  have  the  formation  of  this 
Hamburg  reform  congregation  and  the  dedication  of  its 
first  temple  become  historic  in  Jewish  annals  because  of  the 
consequences.  The  three  rabbis  of  Hamburg,  Baruch  ben 
Meir  Oser,  Moses  Jacob  Jaffe,  and  Jechiel  Michael  Speyer, 
issued  a  proclamation  denouncing  the  heresies  of  the  new 
movement.  Feeling  ran  very  high.  L.  J.  Riesser,  the  son- 
in-law  of  Raphael  Kohn,  rabbi  of  Altona,  and  father  of 
the  great  advocate,  the  central  figure  in  the  stirring  history 
of  Jewish  emancipation  in  Germany,  Gabriel  Riesser,  issued 
an  address  to  his  co-religionists  in  Hamburg,  counselling 
peace  and  calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  need  for 

1  Nachgelassene  Schriften-,  I,  162.  This  critique,  it  is  true,  was 
written  concerning  the  second  edition  of  the  Prayer-Book  issued  in 
1842,  but  it  applies  as  well  to  this  first  edition. 

3  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  148;   Infra.,  Chapter  IV. 

8  Jost,  op.  cit.,  23. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT       47 

reform  was  undeniable. J  His  words  fell  upon  deaf  ears. 
The  orthodox  party  now  took  the  reprehensible  step  of 
attempting  to  induce  the  Senate  of  Hamburg  to  close  the 
new  house  of  worship.  This  caused  the  reformers  to  bestir 
themselves;  the  officers  of  the  new  congregation  requested 
rabbinical  authorities  for  an  expression  of  opinion  on  the 
validity  of  the  reforms  they  had  introduced.  This  resulted 
in  the  publication  of  a  volume2  containing  a  number  of 
opinions  favorable  to  the  new  departure.  The  most  note- 
worthy deliverance  in  this  controversy  is  that  of  Aaron 
Chorin,3  rabbi  of  Arad  in  Moravia,  one  of  the  most  inter- 
esting figures  of  the  early  years  of  the  reform  movement. 
Chorin  defends  all  the  reforms  introduced  at  Hamburg  by 
citations  from  rabbinical  authorities ;  he  recommends  these 
reforms  as  necessary,  and  condemns  without  stint  the 
abuses  which  the  reformers  had  taken  steps  to  remove ;  he 
speaks  a  word  of  encouragement  to  the  members  of  the 
new  congregation,  and  urges  them  to  continue  in  the  work 
upon  which  they  had  entered. 4  The  rabbis  of  Hamburg 

1  Adresse  an  meiiie  Glaubensgenossen  in  Hamburg.     Altona,  1818. 

3  pns  nsj,  ^"ith  an  appendix  ntt    11K-     Dessau,  1818. 

*  Aaron  Chorin,  Eine  'biographische  Skizze  von  Leopold  Low, 
Gesammelte  Schriften,  II,  251-420.  Szegedin,  1890. 

*The  last  public  utterance  of  Aaron  Chorin  was  a  communication 
addressed  to  a  conference  of  Hungarian  rabbis  at  Paks  in  1844.  He 
died  on  August  24  of  that  year ;  on  August  13  he  wrote  the  communi- 
cation in  question;  I  quote  a  portion  of  it  because  it  expresses  so 
well  the  ideals  that  led  this  early  reformer  up  and  on.  He  had 
passed  through  struggles  and  persecutions  because  of  his  convictions, 
but  at  the  very  close  of  his  life,  after  he  had  reached  his  seventy- 
eighth  year,  we  find  him  as  undismayed  as  ever  in  the  cause  to  which 
he  had  devoted  himself.  We  may  consider  this  final  communication 
as  his  rabbinical  will  and  testament;  he  wrote  thus:  "The  per- 
manent elements  of  religion  must  be  expressed  in  terms  that  appeal 
to  the  people  and  are  consonant  with  the  needs  of  life.  If  our 
religion  and  life  appear  to  conflict  with  one  another  this  is  due  either 
to  the  defacement  of  the  sanctuary  by  foreign  additions  or  to  the 
license  of  the  sinning  will  which  desires  to  make  its  unbridled  greed 
and  its  false  tendency  authoritative  guides  for  life.  If  we  will  show 


48  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

also  appealed  to  their  colleagues  for  support  in  the  stand 
they  had  taken ;  they  received  twenty-two  responses.  * 
These  all  seconded  the  position  taken  by  the  rabbis  of  Ham- 
burg, and  denounced  violently  the  reforms.  They  con- 
demned ex  cathedra.  Some  of  their  expressions  are  char- 
acteristic and  well  worth  citing,  as  indicative  of  the  feel- 
ings entertained  generally  by  the  opponents  of  reforms 
in  Judaism.  Kabbi  Moses  Sofer, 2  the  celebrated  chief  of 

ourselves  as  ready  to  strip  off  these  unessential  additions  which  often 
forced  themselves  upon  our  noble  faith  as  the  spawn  of  obscure  and 
dark  ages,  as  we  are  determined  to  sacrifice  our  very  lives  for  the 
upholding  of  the  essential,  we  will  be  able  to  resist  successfully  with 
the  help  of  God  all  wanton,  thoughtless  and  presumptuous  attacks 
which  license  or  ignorance  may  direct  against  our  sacred  cause  j  the 
seeming  conflict  will  then  disappear  and  we  will  have  accomplished 
something  lasting  for  God.  I  need  not  tell  you  that  of  all  the  ex- 
ternal institutions  the  public  service  demands  our  immediate  and 
undivided  attention.  He  who  is  faithful  to  his  God,  and  is  earnestly 
concerned  for  the  welfare  of  his  religion,  must  exert  himself  to 
rescue  our  service  from  the  ruin  into  which  it  has  fallen  and  to  give 
it  once  again  that  inspiring  form  which  is  worthy  of  a  pious  and 
devout  worship  of  the  one  true  God.  For  it  is  not  only  the  ex- 
crescences of  dark  ages  which  cover  it  with  disgrace,  but  thought- 
lessness, lack  of  taste,  absence  of  devotion,  and  caprice  have  disfigured 
its  noble  outlines/'  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII,  551. 

1  rplin    »W  n^K.     Altona,  1819.     An  answer  to  this  publication 
was  issued  the  same  year  by  M.  J.  Bresselau,  one  of  the  organizers 
of    the    temple    congregation,    under    the    title    rp*Q  Dpi  fiopj  Tin 
Streitschrift  gegen  die  Serif t  nnnn    nm  nte  den  Hamburger  Tem- 
pelstreit  betheidigend. 

2  Moses  Sofer  was  one  of  the  luminaries  of  rabbinical  Judaism. 
His  fanaticism  against  the  reform  movement  was  intense.     He  was 
the  very  antipode  to  Aaron  Chorin,  and  since  his  final  utterance  also 
contains  some   expressions   concerning  reform,   I   quote   it   as  repre- 
senting the  other   side.     In  his  will  he  gives  his   children  parting 
advice  and  instruction  in  these  terms:   "Avoid  the  pernicious  com- 
pany of  these  evil-doers,  the  innovators  who  have  removed  themselves 
far  from  God  and  his  law!     Live  not  in  their  vicinity,  and  have  no 
association  of  any  kind  with  them.     Touch  not  the  books  of  Moses 
of  Dessau    (Moses   Mendelssohn);    then   will  your    feet   never   slip! 
.  .  .  Your  daughters  may  read  German  books,  but  only  such  as  are 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT       49 

the  Jewish  community  of  Pressburg,  Hungary,  calls  the 
reformers  ' '  infidels, "  "  foxes  which  destroy  the  vineyards. ' ' 
He  objects  to  the  placing  of  an  organ  in  the  synagogue  or 
the  use  of  any  musical  instrument  in  the  service  on  the 
ground  that  the  Jews  are  in  exile  and  mourning  because  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  therefore  all  music  as 
expressive  of  joy  and  pleasure  must  be  excluded  from  the 
service.  Markus  Benedikt,  chief  rabbi  of  Moravia,  declared 
that  the  Hamburg  reformers  were  "neither  Jews  nor  Chris- 
tians, but  people  without  faith ; ' '  that ' '  their  prayers  were 
sinful  and  their  only  purpose  in  introducing  reforms  was 
to  curry  favor  with  the  Christians."  These  condem- 
natory responses  had  no  practical  result.  The  orthodox 
party  did  not  succeed  in  having  the  temple  closed  by  the 
government  as  they  had  hoped  to  be  able  to  do.  The  reform 
congregation  continued  to  flourish.  Shortly  after  the 
dedication  in  October,  1818,  Gotthold  Salomon  was  called 
from  Dessau  to  fill  the  post  of  preacher  in  connection  with 
Eduard  Kley.  Still,  in  spite  of  the  fame  of  its  preachers 
and  their  splendid  activity,  the  practical  activity  of  the  con- 
gregation remained  local,  except  for  one  achievement,  viz., 
the  establishment  of  a  branch  reform  synagogue  at  Leipzig 
during  the  great  yearly  fairs  or  "Messen."  Merchants 
from  all  over  Europe  gathered  at  Leipzig  during  these 
fairs,  and  the  institution  of  a  reform  service  in  the  year 
1820  was  missionary  work  for  the  new  cause.  The  ideas 
expressed  in  the  sermons  preached  here  were  taken  home 
by  the  hundreds  of  strangers  who  heard  them,  and  became 
frequently  the  incentives  towards  work  along  the  lines  of 

written  in  our  spirit,  in  harmony  with  the  explanations  of  our  teachers 
of  blessed  memory.  .  .  .  Never  say  'The  times  have  changed. '  We 
have  an  old  Father,  blessed  be  his  name!  who  has  never  changed,  who 
will  never  change."  Apart  from  the  polemical  expressions  against 
reform,  the  document  is  permeated  with  a  fine  spirit  and  teaches  the 
loftiest  lessons.  Published  in  Jost's  Israelitische  Annalen,  I  (1839), 
354;  see  also  Abrahams,  J.  Q.  S.,  Ill,  475. 
4 


50  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

reform  in  their  home  communities. *  J.  L.  Auerbach  of 
Berlin  was  the  preacher  of  this  cosmopolitan  congregation. 
The  congregations  at  Hamburg  and  Leipzig  were  the  sal- 
vage rescued  from  the  wreck  of  the  ship  of  reform  on  the 
shoals  of  reaction.  These  two  congregations,  and  notably 
that  of  Hamburg,  existed  on  as  the  visible  symbol  of  re- 
form. The  mere  fact  of  this  continuance  was  a  great  serv- 
ice to  the  cause. 2  During  the  years  intervening  between 
the  triumph  of  the  orthodox  party  in  Berlin  in  1823  and 
the  beginning  of  Geiger 's  activity  in  1835  the  Hamburg 
Temple  was  the  one  congregation  in  Germany  that  repre- 
sented the  reform  principle,  in  spite  of  the  inconsistencies 
whereof  it  was  guilty  in  its  attempts  at  compromise.  "Is 
the  rabbi  consistent  who  germanizes  and  de-orientalizes  his 
sermons  and  his  theological  disquisitions  so  far  as  language, 
form,  and  style  are  concerned,  and  at  the  same  time  wor- 
ships with  covered  head  and  has  his  children  do  likewise  ?  is 
he  consistent  if  he  recites  the  prayer  hanoten  t  'skua  3  com- 
posed for  some  Asiatic  despot  or  Italian  condottiere,  and 
immediately  thereafter  speaks  of  civic  conditions  in  the 
light  and  spirit  of  our  century?  is  he  consistent  when  he 
strains  every  nerve  to  have  order  and  decorum  in  the 
synagogue  on  the  ninth  of  Ab  and  then  permits  torn  clothes 
and  unshaven  faces  on  occasions  of  private  mourning?  is 
he  consistent  when  he  preaches  conciliation  and  tolerance 
towards  all  and  then  does  not  dare  abolish  the  prayer 
ivelamalshinim,?" 4  These  words,  which  a  critic  of  the 

1  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  herausgegeben  von  Abraham  Geiger,  I,  464;  II,  493. 

3  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  V,  241,  in  estimate  of  Kley  'a  services  at  time 
of  latter  'a  death  in  1867;  ibid.,  VII,  24,  Zu  Schutz  und  Trutz. 

8  A  prayer  for  the  well-being  of  the  established  government. 

4  The  twelfth  benediction  of  the  Shemone  esreh    (eighteen  bene- 
dictions).    This  prayer,  originally  framed  against  sectaries  within 
Judaism  (Birlcat  hamminim)  was  in  mediaeval  days  claimed  by  the 
enemies  of  the  Jews  to  be  a  petition  directed  against  the  Christians. 
Because  of  this  misinterpretation  many  urged  its  elimination  from 
the  ritual.     On  the  history   of  this  benediction  see   Baer  Abodath 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT       51 

Hamburg  Temple  wrote *  in  denunciation  of  the  inconsis- 
tencies in  its  ritual  and  its  service,  showing  that  it  had  not 
gone  the  whole  length  of  reform  by  any  manner  of  means, 
may  not  obscure  the  great  service  performed  by  this  con- 
gregation during  the  years  mentioned;  for  "it  cannot  be 
gainsaid  that  it  contributed  greatly  by  its  mere  existence 
to  the  rejuvenation  of  the  service  in  places  far  and  near, 
and  exerted  a  great  influence  upon  the  renewed  discussion 
and  treatment  of  this  question. ' ' 2  Before  proceeding  to 
the  account  of  this  period  of  "renewed  discussion  and 
treatment, ' '  the  time  of  the  second  generation  of  reformers, 
some  finishing  touches  to  the  account  of  the  beginnings  of 
the  reform  movement,  may  be  given.  An  edict  regulating 
the  affairs  of  the  Jews  in  the  Duchy  of  Saxe- Weimar  was 
promulgated  by  the  Grand  Duke  Carl  Friedrich  on  June 
10,  1823.  It  consisted  of  thirty-four  paragraphs,  where- 
of the  following  are  concerned  with  the  subject  in  hand; 
the  whole  service  was  to  be  in  German,  with  the  exception 
of  the  readings  from  the  Torah  and  the  Haftarah,  which 
were  to  be  in  Hebrew,  to  be  accompanied,  however,  by  a 
translation  into  the  vernacular;  the  benediction  preceding 
the  reading  from  the  Torah,  the  benediction  accompanying 
the  blowing  of  the  Shofar,  and  the  priestly  benediction 
were  to  be  recited  in  Hebrew.  A  number  of  the  para- 
graphs of  the  edict  aimed  at  overcoming  the  disorder  in  the 
house  of  worship;  thus  the  "Haman  beating"  on  Purim 
as  well  as  the  beating  of  the  breast  during  the  confession  of 
sins  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  was  forbidden,  likewise  the 
selling  of  "mitzwot;"  the  frequent  opening  and  closing 

Jisrael,  sub  voce,  ' '  welamalshinim, "  Roedelheim,  1868;  Bacher 
Agada  tier  Tanaiten-  83  ff.,  Strasburg,  1903;  Friedlander  Jiidische 
ApologetiTc,  469,  Zurich,  1903;  Dembitz,  Services  in  Synagogue  and 
Home,  132-4,  Philadelphia,  1898;  on  the  advisability  of  its  elimina- 
tion see  Salomon,  Das  neue  Gebetbuch  und  seine  Verbetzerung,  22. 
Hamburg,  1842. 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  II,  210. 

2  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  176. 


52       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  ark  on  New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day  of  Atonement 
were  to  cease;  the  prayers  adonai  elohe  yisrael,  shomre 
yisrael,  and  kol  nidre  were  abolished;  the  Qaddish  prayer 
was  to  be  spoken  by  the  reader  in  German  and  repeated 
quietly  by  the  mourners. 1  The  district  rabbi  of  Saxe- Wei- 
mar was  Dr.  Mendel  Hess,  one  of  the  most  ardent,  yes,  one 
of  the  most  fanatic  of  the  early  reformers ;  it  was  undoubt- 
edly due  to  him  that  these  drastic  provisions  were  included 
in  this  "  Judenordnung ; "  all  opposition  to  this  decree  was 
crushed  by  governmental  aid;  but  the  resentment  aroused 
by  the  attempt  to  enforce  its  enactment  was  so  great  among 
the  Jewish  congregations  that  it  was  not  carried  into  effect 
till  1837. 2  Hess  was  guilty  of  the  same  unpardonable 
offence  as  the  orthodox  party  in  Berlin,  viz.,  the  invoking 
of  the  police  power  of  the  government  in  private  religious 
concerns;  he  made  the  same  mistake  as  did  so  many  re- 
formers of  this  first  generation;  instead  of  educating  the 
people  up  to  their  ideas  and  founding  reform  upon  a  phil- 
osophical basis,  they  aimed  merely  to  establish  certain 
improvements  in  the  service;  reform  in  this  light  dealt 
merely  with  externals,  while  in  reality  it  was  a  new  inter- 
pretation of  ceremonial  Judaism. 

In  1833  Joseph  Abraham  Friedlander,  the  chief  rabbi 
of  the  Duchy  of  Westphalia  and  the  barony  of  Wittgen- 
stein, introduced  into  the  synagogue  a  number  of  reforms. 
The  orthodox  party  preferred  charges  against  him  to  the 
government  on  the  ground  that  he  had  tampered  with  the 
traditional  ritual;  the  accusation  contained  seventeen 
counts ;  this  proceeding  gives  an  excellent  idea  of  the  status 
of  affairs  in  those  days  when  such  insignificant  reforms  as 
these  were  considered  so  great  breaches  in  the  wall  of  tra- 
dition. The  offences  of  Friedlander  as  enumerated  by  his 
accusers  were  these:  the  singing  of  the  introductory  Sab- 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  I,  101,  110. 
3  Ibid.,  I,  25. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT       53 

bath  hymn,  I'ka  dodi,1  by  the  choir;  the  responsive  read- 
ing of  the  introductory  Sabbath  psalm,  mizmor  shir  I'yom 
hashabboth;  2  the  singing  of  sh'ma  yisrael  by  the  choir;  the 
abolition  of  the  section  bameh  madliqin3  and  ezehu 
m'qoman;4  the  placing  of  a  pulpit  in  the  synagogue;  the 
responsive  reading  of  the  p'suqe  d'zimrah;5  the  singing 
of  German  hymns  before  and  after  the  sermon;  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  n'ginah;  6  the  reading  of  the  ha  f  tar  ah  by  the 
cantor  instead  of  by  some  member  of  the  congregation; 
the  responsive  reading  of  the  ub  'nuchoh  yomar  7  and  of  the 
Hallel;  8  the  choral-like  singing  of  the  yigdal;  9  the  pro- 
hibition to  remove  the  shoes  and  sit  on  the  floor  on  tish'a 
&'a&;10  the  confirmation  service.  The  government  declined 
to  entertain  the  charges  on  the  ground  that  such  points  of 
internal  administration  were  without  its  province  and  be- 
longed to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  congregation.  The  re- 
forms continued  to  be  observed. 

This  Abraham  Joseph  Friedlander  is  an  interesting  fig- 

1  This  hymn  was  composed  by  Solomon  the  Levite  about  1500  at 
Safed,  Palestine.     For  an  English  rendering  of  the  poem  see  Alice 
Lucas'  The  Jewish  Year,  167.     London,  1898. 

2  Psalm  xcii. 

8  A  Mishnaic  section  (Mish.  Sabb.  II)  on  the  Sabbath  lights,  which 
had  been  incorporated  in  the  liturgy. 

*A  similar  section  on  the  sacrifices  (Mish.  Zeb.,  V). 
6  Psalms  included  in  the  service. 

6  The  peculiar   chant  in  which  the  cantor  read  the  Pentateuchal 
section. 

7  The  verse  taken  from  Numbers  x.  36,  and  spoken  at  the  ' '  Ein- 
heben, ' '  the  return  of  the  scroll  to  the  ark. 

8  The  psalms  of  praise  (cxiii-cxviii)  read  as  an  additional  portion 
of  the  service  on  New  Moon,  the  three  high  feasts,  and  the  Feast  of 
Dedication. 

3  A  poetical  rendition  of  the  thirteen  articles  of  faith  formulated 
in  the  Maimonidean  creed  and  used  as  a  hymn  at  the  close  of  the 
service. 

10  The  ninth  day  of  Ab,  the  anniversary  of  the  Destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, observed  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  mourning. 


54  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ure;  he  was  one  of  the  few  older  rabbis  who  espoused  the 
reform  cause,  the  reason  for  which  action  he  gave  in  these 
words  in  1842  when  he  was  eighty-six  years  old :  "  Thought 
cannot  be  checked.  It  progresses.  Those  who  advocate 
the  principle  of  progress  in  all  other  directions  cannot 
possibly  expect  that  in  religious  matters  alone  antiquated 
notions  should  rule.  If  we  refuse  to  reform  our  faith  in 
accordance  with  the  culture  of  the  time  we  will  force  an 
ever  greater  number  of  the  present  generation,  yes,  I  may 
say,  the  majority  of  them,  either  to  become  hypocrites  or 
to  find  their  faith  uncongenial. " * 

During  these  years  of  the  interregnum,  if  I  may  so  term 
it,  between  the  activity  of  the  first  and  second  generation 
of  reformers,  *.  e.  between  the  collapse  of  the  first  reform 
movement  in  Berlin  and  the  appearance  on  the  scene  of 
Geiger  and  his  contemporaries,  a  period  of  some  twelve 
years,  although  there  was  no  agitation  on  a  large  scale  and 
apathy  seemed  to  have  succeeded  the  strenuous  labors  of 
the  earliest  reformers,  still  was  this  only  as  a  calm  pre- 
ceding the  great  struggles  of  the  fifth  decade  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  that  culminated  in  the  rabbinical  confer- 
ences of  Brunswick,  Frankfort,  and  Breslau  in  1844,  1845, 
and  1846  and  the  formation  of  the  Berlin  reform  congre- 
gation in  1845. .  True,  various  reforms  had  been  introduced 
in  a  number  of  congregations  in  Germany,  Austria,  and 
France ;  but  in  most  places  the  party  of  tradition  held  the 
official  reins  and  the  cleft  between  life  and  Judaism  was 
growing  wider  and  wider.  "The  number  of  those  who 
withdraw  themselves  completely  from  all  participation  in 
the  religious  services  grows  considerably  from  year  to  year, 
not  because  they  do  not  experience  the  need  of  true  relig- 
ious edification,  but  because  the  services  in  the  synagogue, 
as  conducted  at  present,  are  not  such  as  to  meet  this  need. ' ' 
Thus  wrote  an  intelligent  observer  in  Frankfort-on-the- 

1  Babbinische  Gutachten  uber  die  Vertrdglichkeit  der  freien  For- 
schung  mit  dem  Babbineramte,  14.  Breslau,  1842. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT       55 

Main  in  1837. 1  This  expressed  the  state  of  affairs 
throughout  Germany,  notably  in  the  larger  centres  of  pop- 
ulation. 

However,  it  was  not  alone  the  dissatisfaction  with  the 
service  in  the  synagogue  that  gave  evidence  of  the  religious 
unrest  among  the  Jews,  but  the  entire  attitude  towards 
the  state,  towards  life,  towards  the  future,  was  different 
from  what  it  had  been  in  the  days  when  the  Shulchan 
Aruk  was  the  vade  mecum  of  the  Jew.  An  indication 
of  the  usual  condition  of  Jewish  religious  affairs  at  this 
time  is  presented  in  a  document  of  the  year  1835,  an  edict 
of  the  Bavarian  government  calling  for  assemblies  of  Jew- 
ish representatives,  rabbis,  teachers,  and  laymen  in  the 
various  districts  of  the  land  to  deliberate  and  arrive  at 
decisions  upon  doctrinal,  educational,  and  administrative 
matters ;  one  of  the  reasons  mentioned  for  issuing  the  edict 
is  that  there  is  no  unanimity  nor  certainty  among  Jewish 
congregations  as  to  what  are  the  articles  of  faith;  "there 
are  differences  as  to  the  number  and  content  of  the  funda- 
mental principles;  these  differences  exert  a  marked  influ- 
ence on  the  question  of  the  civil  position  of  the  Jews. ' ' 2 
This  statement  points  undoubtedly  to  the  difference  in  the 
attitude  of  the  parties  of  tradition  and  reform  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  return  to  Palestine,  since  this  involved  the  fun- 
damental consideration  as  to  whether  the  Jews  still  looked 
upon  themselves  as  a  nation  or  merely  as  a  religious  com- 
munity whose  members  had  no  national  hopes  and  aspira- 
tions other  than  those  of  their  fellow  citizens  of  other  faiths. 
Such  and  similar  basic  differences  were  involved  in  the 
changed  interpretation  that  the  reform  movement  was  the 
expression  of. 3  The  spirit  of  change  was  at  work  in  many 
quarters,  and  this  survey  of  the  beginnings  of  the  reform 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  n,  4. 
3Geiger's  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  H,  435. 

'Cf.  the  striking  statement  in  a  letter  written  from  Frankfort-on- 
the-Main  in  1845.  I.  d.  N.  J.,  V,  112. 


56  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

movement  in  Judaism  can  be  closed  no  more  effectively 
than  by  quoting  an  outburst  occasioned  by  the  dedication 
of  a  new  temple  in  the  city  of  Prague;  this  temple  was 
dedicated  on  April  3,  1837,  with  choir,  organ,  German 
sermon  and  the  abolition  of  the  piyyutim;1  the  beth  din,  con- 
sisting of  the  rabbis  of  the  city,  was  present  at  the  dedica- 
tion ;  the  editor  of  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums, 
the  leading,  in  fact  the  only,  Jewish  newspaper  of  the 
time,  was  moved  to  supplement  the  report  of  this  event  with 
these  words :  ' '  Oh,  the  change !  In  the  year  1819  the  rab- 
binate of  Prague  anathematized  every  such  innovation  in 
the  well-known  book  Ele  dibre  habb'rith:2  thus  mightily 
works  the  spirit  of  the  age. ' ' 3 

1  Liturgical  poems  wherewith  the  ritual  had  become  overweighted. 

2  Supra,  48. 
'Vol.  I,  44. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  SECOND  GENERATION  OF  EEFOEMEES 

THE  condition  of  religious  affairs  in  German  Jewry  in 
the  fourth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  far  from 
encouraging;  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  high  hopes  en- 
tertained by  the  inaugurates  of  the  reform  movement  that 
this  would  prove  the  panacea  for  all  the  ills  from  which 
Judaism  was  suffering  had  not  been  realized ;  the  problem 
had  not  been  solved ;  the  conflict  between  traditional  Juda- 
ism and  modernism  was  as  pronounced  as  ever.  The  Jews 
were  divided  into  various  parties  which  were  characterized 
as  follows  in  the  year  1835  by  one  of  the  keenest  observers : 
' '  the  one  party  wishes  everything  to  remain  as  it  is  ....  ; 
no  one  shall  presume  to  deprive  them  of  anything  which 
they  have  considered  holy  at  any  time;  they  mock  at 
history,  and  all  progress  is  monstrous  in  their  eyes;  they 
mock  also  at  the  true  spirit  which  animates  the  synagogue, 
but  they  do  not  know  this  nor  yet  believe  it,  for  proofs 
carry  no  weight  with  such.  Then  there  is  the  other  ex- 
treme. Because  Judaism  as  constituted  at  present  suffers 
from  defects,  therefore  (think  they)  it  should  not  exist  at 
all;  they  would  have  it  extirpated,  and  in  its  place  would 
put  an  insignificant  little  tree  which  does  not  take  root,  nor 
blossom  nor  bear  fruit.  .  .  .  And  can  you  imagine  even 
for  a  moment  that  such  an  unstable  reed  can  take  the  place 
of  the  deeply  rooted  tree  of  the  synagogue  which  furnished 
cooling  shade  and  produced  refreshing  fruit  for  so  many 
centuries?  This  tree  has  grown  too  rank,  and  possibly 
crooked,  but  prop  it  up,  prune  it,  and  it  will  do  better. 
Has  not  the  present  age,  which  has  caused  you  to  adopt 

57 


58  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

views  so  radically  different  from  those  of  your  fathers, 
also  the  power  to  make  you  conscious  of  the  good  in  the 
past  so  that  you  destroy  this  not  willfully  ? " 1  Between 
these  two  extremes  there  were  many  varying  shades  of 
opinion  inclining  more  or  less  to  the  one  or  the  other. 
The  waters  were  deeply  troubled.  The  reformers  had  not 
grasped  the  situation  in  its  totality.  They  thought  that 
a  few  synagogal  reforms  were  all  that  was  necessary  to 
solve  the  conflict  between  rabbinical  Judaism  and  the 
modern  spirit,  but  they  overlooked  the  all-important  fact 
that  the  public  worship  in  the  synagogue  has  never  been  all 
of  Judaism ;  they  were  influenced  too  much  by  their  Chris- 
tian environment  in  this  matter;  in  Protestantism,  and 
still  more  in  Catholicism,  the  church  service  is  the  pivot  on 
which  the  whole  system  revolves ;  all  religious  acts  are  con- 
nected in  one  way  or  another  with  the  ecclesiastical  cult; 
important  as  the  place  of  the  synagogue  and  its  services 
in  Jewish  life  had  always  been,  yet  did  they  not  loom  so 
large  upon  the  horizon  of  Judaism  as  did  the  church  and 
its  services  upon  the  horizon  of  Christianity;  there  were 
many  religious  acts  and  customs  which  had  no  necessary 
connection  with  the  synagogue  service,  but  were  performed 
in  the  home,  under  the  blue  of  heaven,  on  a  journey,  or 
where  not?  Judaism  is  not  so  much  a  church-going  insti- 
tution as  a  view  of  life :  its  teachings  are  concerned  with 
the  whole  tangled  web  of  existence;  therefore  by  laying  all 
the  stress  of  their  activity  upon  the  improvement  of  the 
public  worship  the  early  reformers,  notably  of  Westphalia, 
Berlin,  and  Hamburg,  betrayed  their  incompetency  to  deal 
with  the  problem;  the  trouble  lay  too  deep  to  be  removed 
by  the  introduction  of  a  few  liturgical  changes  and  im- 
provements; the  real  task  consisted  in  the  adaptation  of 
the  ideas  and  ideals  of  Judaism  to  the  new  circumstances 

1  Geiger,  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  pp.  8-9 ;  see  also  ibid.,  Jiidische  Geschichte 
von  1830  bis  zur  Gegenwart  (1849),  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  II, 
pp.  264  ff.;  cf.  also  Holdheim,  G.  J.  K.  G.  B.,  3-4. 


THE  SECOND  GENEBATION  OF  REFORMERS  59 

wherein  the  people  found  themselves  in  their  new  environ- 
ment. The  rising  generation  was  drifting  further  and 
further  away.  Religious  affairs  were  in  a  chaotic  condition 
in  many  places :  a  number  of  congregations  had  no  rabbi ; 
since  the  death  of  Hirschl  Levin  in  1800  the  congregation 
of  Berlin,  for  example,  had  no  rabbinical  chief ;  a  rabbi  of 
the  old  school  was  not  appointed  to  the  position  because  he 
did  not  understand  the  new  situation,  nor  was  a  younger 
man,  graduated  with  the  degree  of  doctor  of  philosophy 
from  one  of  the  universities,  appointed,  because  many 
feared  that  such  were  not  imbued  sufficiently  with  the  tra- 
ditional spirit.  Yet,  although  the  reform  movement  had 
not  brought  thus  far  the  healing  to  distracted  Jewry  that 
its  advocates  had  expected  confidently,  still  did  this  not 
minimize  by  one  jot  the  necessity  for  reform.  *  The  first 
generation  of  reformers  had  diagnosed  the  disease  correct- 
ly, but  they  had  not  found  the  proper  remedy.  The  time 
had  come  for  a  more  thorough  consideration  of  the  problem. 
If  those  first  reformers  had  not  mastered  the  task  they  had 
undertaken,  they  had  pointed  the  way  at  least.  They  were 
succeeded  by  a  number  of  remarkable  men,  whose  activity 
in  the  cause  of  reform  began  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth 
decade  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  whom  we  distinguish 
as  the  second  generation  of  reformers.  These  men,  chief 
among  whom  were  Abraham  Geiger,  Samuel  Holdheim, 
David  Einhorn,  Ludwig  Philippson,  Leopold  Stein,  Sam- 
uel Hirsch,  Abraham  and  Samuel  Adler,  Joseph  Aub,  and 
others,  placed  the  reform  movement  on  the  sound  basis  of 
scholarly  investigation,  philosophical  reasoning,  and  latter- 
day  justification.  The  program  of  this  second  genera- 
tion, under  whose  guidance  and  activity  the  reform  move- 
ment entered  upon  a  new  phase,  was  well  expressed  by  the 
greatest  of  their  number,  when  he  wrote  "we  are  beyond 
the  point  of  considering  the  salvation  of  Judaism  depend- 
ent upon  external  embellishments  (of  the  service)  and  of 

1  Holdheim,  ibid.,  75. 


60  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

paying  no  attention  whatsoever  to  the  religious  view-point 
and  the  religious  life  as  a  whole,  on  the  plea  that  the  entire 
religious  life  is  a  matter  of  private  concern  and  touches 
the  individual  conscience;  no,  the  question  of  the  hour  is 
this,— to  determine  what  are  the  spirit  and  the  teaching, 
the  doctrines  and  the  duties  of  life  peculiar  to  Judaism 
and  inherent  in  it. "  *  This  was  the  new  note  struck  by 
this  new  generation.  Although  they  recognized  the  neces- 
sity of  external  reforms  in  the  service,  and  advocated  them, 
yet  they  gazed  more  deeply  into  the  heart  of  the  situation ; 
for  them  this  was  only  an  incident,  not  the  essence  of  re- 
form ;  their  purpose  was  to  get  at  the  root  of  the  matter  by 
research  and  investigation,  to  set  forth  the  principles  of 
Judaism,  to  establish  the  eternal  validity  of  those  princi- 
ples, to  express  them  in  a  manner  consonant  with  the  out- 
look of  their  generation,  to  distinguish  between  the  per- 
manent and  the  transitory  elements,  to  bring  Judaism  into 
harmony  with  the  changed  conditions  in  which  the  people 
were  placed  in  the  new  time,— in  a  word  to  clothe  the  spirit 
of  Judaism  with  a  new  form. 

Active  with  tongue  and  pen,  adept  in  ancient  lore  and 
modern  learning,  they  grappled  earnestly  with  the  problem 
that  confronted  them.  However,  before  giving  a  more  or 
less  detailed  account  of  their  thought  and  work,  it  is  fitting 
to  let  them  express  themselves  on  the  general  aspect  of  the 
subject,  with  which  their  names  will  be  identified  for  all 
times  in  the  annals  of  Judaism:  "Reform  means  for  us, 
changed,  new  appearance;  a  rejuvenated  life,  forms  per- 
meated and  saturated  with  the  spirit.  The  difficult  and  the 
easy,  the  whole  and  the  part,  are  to  receive  meaning  and 
significance,  to  uplift  the  spirit,  and  kindle  the  heart,  in 
order  that  the  religion  may  influence  the  entire  view  and 
course  of  life ; " 2  "we  wish  to  be,  we  should  be  children  of 

1  Geiger,  Der  Hamburger  Tempelstreit,  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften, 
I,  194. 

2  Geiger,  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  II,  211. 


THE  SECOND  GENERATION  OF  REFOEMEES  61 

our  time,  and  as  children  of  this  age  we  must  strive  to  real- 
ize for  our  contemporaries  the  true  standpoint  of  Judaism, 
which  has  never  been  content  to  be  a  faith  divorced  from 
life  or  a  practice  at  variance  with  belief. ' ' x  Thus  wrote 
Geiger,  and  Holdheim  expressed  himself  similarly :  "  I  shall 
attempt  to  answer  the  question  why  our  time  is  so  com- 
pletely different  in  all  its  elements  and  requirements  from 
those  of  rabbinical  Judaism;  but  one  of  two  alternatives 
is  possible  for  the  Jew,  either  to  be  a  rabbinical  Jew  and 
live  aloof  from  the  age,  or  to  live  in  the  age  and  cease  being 
a  rabbinical  Jew.  The  spirit  of  rabbinical  Judaism  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  our  time.  Rabbinical 
Judaism  has  converted  into  religious  ideas  and  tendencies 
all  the  exclusive  national  ideas  and  tendencies  of  the  Bible 
which  were  intended  for  entirely  different  conditions  and 
circumstances,  and  has  thereby  given  them  eternal  validity. 
The  rabbis  have  perpetuated  as  religion  the  temporary  part 
of  Mosaism,  the  symbolism  and  particularism  of  the  theoc- 
racy, and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  misconceived  and 
neglected  its  eternal  element,  the  ideal  of  universalism, 
which  was  in  truth  the  real  purpose  of  the  theocracy. 
Hence  the  irreconcilable  conflict  between  rabbinical  Juda- 
ism and  the  spirit  of  the  modern  age. ' ' 2  The  matter  was 
never  put  more  clearly  than  in  the  response  of  David  Em- 
horn  to  a  Christian,  who  had  written  to  him  for  informa- 
tion as  to  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  the  new  movement 
in  Judaism:  "A  thorough  reform  of  Judaism  based  upon 
the  immovable  foundation  stones  of  Mosaism,  viz.,  monothe- 
ism and  revealed  religion,  certainly  finds  full  sanction  with- 
in the  bounds  of  Jewish  ecclesiastical  history.  Nearly  all 

Geiger,  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  II,  220;  cf.  also  his  definition  of  reform, 
Nachgelassene  Schriften,  II,  265. 

2  Beformbestrebung  und  Emancipation  (appendix  to  Das  Cere- 
monialgesetz  im  Gottesreich,  Schwerin,  1845),  p.  123;  see,  however, 
his  definition  of  reform  as  the  reconciliation  of  two  opposing  prin- 
ciples in  G.  J,  E.  G.  B.  Preface  v,  vi. 


62  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

modern  Jewish  theologians  have  made  such  a  reform  their 
program,  and  at  the  very  outset  have  postulated  by  silent 
agreement  the  following  two  principles  of  procedure  as 
demanded  by  the  necessities  of  the  case :  first  to  unchain  by 
the  breath  of  the  living  spirit  the  forms  that  had  become 
rigid  and  to  make  them  fluid,  and  secondly  to  sift  these 
forms  according  to  their  antiquity  and  essentiality,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  results  of  such  sifting  to  reduce  their 
great  number,  beneath  whose  burden  Judaism,  without  a 
doubt,  is  sighing  and  panting.  The  solution  of  the  latter 
half  of  this  program  is  dependent  palpably  upon  that 
of  the  first  half.  First  of  all,  the  principle  of  sincerity  as 
opposed  to  empty  formalism  had  to  be  re-established  on  the 
basis  of  prophetical  teaching,  the  religion  had  to  be  restored 
to  its  original  purity,  and  the  relation  of  doctrine  to  leg- 
islation had  to  be  determined  hereby,  in  order  that  it  would 
be  possible  to  distinguish  the  human,  political,  and  tem- 
poral elements  in  Judaism  from  the  divine,  essential,  and 
permanent. ' ' 1  And  as  one  further  statement  of  the  situa- 
tion the  words  of  the  foremost  organizing  genius  of  the 
group  of  reformers,  the  editor  of  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung 
des  Judenthums,  may  be  reproduced:  "We  have  devoted 
ourselves  to  and  have  acquired  the  culture  which  mankind 
has  developed  during  the  course  of  thousands  of  years; 
but  Judaism  has  preserved  its  eternal  divine  content  in 
forms,  the  most  of  which  were  the  outcome  of  temporal 
conditions;  they  have  therefore  lived  their  da*.  This  ex- 
terior must  be  re-fashioned,  this  form  must  oe  changed  if 
Judaism  is  to  continue  to  influence  the  lives  of  its  followers 
in  accordance  with  its  purpose  and  its  power,  and  if  it  is 
to  persist  among  the  world  forces  in  a  manner  worthy  of 
its  high  destiny. ' ' 2  As  is  apparent  from  these  utterances 
the  situation  was  grasped  clearly,  but  how  was  it  to  be  met 

1A.Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  87. 

8Philippson,  ibid.,  IX   (1845),  516.     Cf.  also  Holdheim,  G.  J.  B. 
G.  B.,  105,  200;  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  V,  251. 


THE  SECOND  GENEEATION  OF  EEFOEMEES  63 

successfully?  Here  the  second  generation  of  reformers 
profited  by  the  shortcomings  of  their  predecessors.  In- 
stead of  directing  all  their  energy  to  the  introduction  of 
external  liturgical  reforms,  they  determined  to  begin  at 
the  foundation  and  work  upwards;  their  program  was, 
to  establish  reform  on  a  scientific  basis,  to  set  forth  clearly 
the  essential  truths  of  Judaism,  to  let  the  light  of  investi- 
gation play  upon  its  principles,  to  investigate  the  validity 
of  every  doctrine  and  every  form,  to  determine  which  re- 
ligious institutions  had  outlived  their  usefulness,  and  were 
hindering  rather  than  helping  the  religious  life,  which  con- 
duced to  the  furtherance  of  the  Jewish  ideals,  and  which 
were  in  conflict  with  the  modern  spirit  and  modern  needs  j1 
and  then  when  scholarship  had  thus  established  the  founda- 
tion and  had  separated  the  permanent  from  the  passing, 
the  essential  from  the  formal,  the  work  of  practical  reform 
was  to  begin.  It  is  apparent  that  here  was  a  new  depart- 
ure; there  was  to  be  no  break  between  past  and  present; 
the  reform  movement  was  shown  to  be  justified,  because 
there  had  always  been  development  in  Judaism;  investiga- 
tion proved  that  different  forms  arose  in  different  ages, 
that  Judaism  in  separate  lands  adapted  itself  to  conditions, 
that  authorities  of  aforetimes  did  not  scruple  to  meet  ex- 
traordinary situations  by  extraordinary  enactments,  that 
the  whole  body  of  Jewish  observance  is  a  product  of  the 
ages,  that  the  liturgy  of  the  synagogue,  its  prayers,  its 
benedictions,  were  the  growth  of  centuries.  All  this  being 
established  by  a  study  of  the  sources  and  by  the  insight 
into  the  conditions  of  the  past,  the  logical  conclusion  was 
that  the  present  requirements  could  be  satisfied  by  such 
measures  as  the  situation  required,  for  life  spelt  progress- 
ive development  and  standstill  meant  decay  and  death. 2 

1  Geiger,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  340. 

8  Of.  Geiger,  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  pp.  10,  11,  222,  II,  569;  Nachgelassene 
ScJirifien,  I,  127,  133,  187,  204;  Holdheim,  V erlcetzerung  und 
Gewissensfreiheit,  passim;  Eitter,  Samuel  Holdheim,  66,  76,  167; 


64  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  man  who  more  than  any  other  directed  the  reform 
movement  into  this  channel  was  Abraham  Geiger,  born  at 
Frankfort-on-the-Main,  May  24,  1810.  Geiger  possessed 
all  the  necessary  qualifications  for  such  a  task.  He  com- 
bined a  thorough  mastery  of  the  Jewish  sources  with  a 
modern  university  education.  His  erudition  was  pro- 
found, and  his  insight  keen.  When  he  was  but  twenty- 
three  years  of  age  he  published  his  doctor's  dissertation, 
"What  did  Mohammed  take  from  Judaism?"1— a  study 
which  evinced  a  splendid  grasp  of  both  Mohammedan  and 
Jewish  sources,  a  study,  too,  whose  value  the  lapse  of  time 
has  not  diminished,  for  a  new  edition  was  issued  almost 
seventy  years  after  the  original  publication  (in  1902).  In 
addition  to  his  special  Jewish  activities  he  found  time  to 
carry  on  investigations  in  the  broader  field  of  general 
Semitic  learning,  for  contributions  from  his  pen  appeared 
in  learned  periodicals,  notably  in  the  foremost  Oriental 
publication  of  his  day,  the  magazine  of  the  German  Oriental 
Society  (Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  Morgenldndischen 
Gesellschaft) .  In  him  were  joined  great  scholarship  and 
practical  activity,  for  he  was  preacher  and  student,  re- 
former and  scientific  investigator,  fighter  for  his  political 
rights  before  the  government,  and  keen  solver  of  difficult 
literary  problems.  He  was  most  ingenuous  in  his  inter- 
pretation of  difficult  points  of  Biblical  exegesis  and  of 
Jewish  literature  and  history,  as  his  Urschrift  der  Bib  el 
and  the  many  studies  in  the  two  magazines  2  he  established, 
amply  prove.  His  three  series  of  lectures  on  Judaism  and 

Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judenthums  und  seiner  SeTcten,  III,  352;  Low, 
Gesammelte  Schriften,  II,  206,  271,  455;  Levin,  Eeform  des  Juden- 
thums, 25,  56,  61;  Philippson,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XL  (1876),  235. 

1  Was  hat  Mohammed  aus  dem  Judenthume  aufgenommen?    Bonn, 
1833. 

2  Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  fur  judische  Theologie,  six  volumes, 
1835-1848;  Judische  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  Bres- 
lau,  eleven  volumes,  1862-1874. 


THE  SECOND  GENEEATION  OF  EEFOEMEKS  65 

its  history  l  shows  a  fine  philosophical  grasp  of  the  intent 
of  Judaism  from  Biblical  times ;  his  epoch-making  essay  on 
the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 2  revolutionized  the  thought 
of  the  learned  world  on  the  significance  of  these  two  parties 
in  Jewish  antiquity.  The  current  ideas  about  these  parties 
were  founded  particularly  upon  the  notices  in  Josephus 
and  the  New  Testament:  the  Pharisees  were  looked  upon 
as  the  reactionary  party  among  the  Jews,  the  formalists, 
the  religious  hypocrites,  slaves  of  the  letter,  enemies  of  the 
spirit ;  Geiger  's  researches  into  Jewish  literature  convinced 
him  that  quite  the  contrary  was  the  case,  that  the  Pharisees 
were  the  party  of  progress  and  the  Pharisaic  leaders  or, 
in  other  words,  the  great  rabbis  and  teachers  from  the  sec- 
ond pre-Christian  century  onward,  interpreting  the  law 
in  a  spirit  required  by  the  necessities  of  the  people,  pro- 
tested against  the  assumptions  of  the  Sadducees,  the  con- 
servative party  of  the  priestly  and  aristocratic  classes. 

Speaking  broadly,  it  may  be  said  that  he  viewed  the 
whole  story  of  Judaism  from  its  very  beginnings  as  an 
evolution :  he  claimed  that  the  rabbinical  party,  who  made 
the  Talmud  the  final  court  of  appeal  in  religious  belief 
and  practice  misinterpreted  Judaism,  and  he  used  the  signi- 
ficant term,  ''Talmud-Karaites,"  when  writing  of  them. 
The  Talmudic  period  was  only  a  phase  in  the  development 
of  Judaism ;  to  base  all  doctrine  and  practice  upon  the  Tal- 
mud through  the  Shulchan  Aruk  and  to  claim  that  this 
was  the  norm  of  authority  for  all  future  generations,  was 
in  its  way  Karaism  as  rank  as  any  that  the  sect  founded  by 
Anan  was  guilty  of.  The  term,  however,  was  in  reality  a 
retort  upon  the  rabbinical  party,  one  of  whose  favorite 
charges  against  the  reform  movement,  was  that  it  was 
simply  Karaism  over  again,  that  is,  a  renouncing  of  all 
tradition,  and  an  acceptance  of  nothing  as  authoritative 
except  the  letter  of  the  Bible.  To  Geiger  and  his  co-work- 

1  Das  Judenihum  und  seine  Geschichte.     Breslau,  1865. 

2  Sadducaer  und  Pharisaer,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  II,  11-54. 

5 


66  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ers,  however,  this  did  not  apply ;  for  them  Judaism  was  an 
ever-developing  faith ;  they  accepted  and  even  insisted  upon 
the  principle  of  tradition,  but  they  refused  to  accede  to  the 
rabbinical  claim  that  all  tradition  was  in  the  Talmud; 
neither  Bible  nor  Talmud,  neither  casuistics  nor  phi- 
'losophy,  neither  commentaries  nor  codes,  are  the  whole  of 
Judaism,  but  are  links  in  the  century-long  chain ;  they  are 
aspects  of  Judaism,  and  the  time  had  come  for  the  age-old 
religion  to  assume  a  new  aspect;  life  demanded  it,  the 
changed  circumstances  required  it.  Geiger  presented  this 
thesis  in  a  hundred  different  ways.  For  him  the  reform 
movement  was  a  necessary  incident  in  the  history  of  Juda- 
ism. 

True,  he  was  not  altogether  original  in  his  claim  that  a 
study  of  the  sources  would  prove  that  there  had  always 
been  a  living  stream  of  thought-development  in  Judaism. 
As  has  been  shown  this  had  been  the  program  of  the 
short-lived  " Society  for  the  Science  of  Judaism"  (Verein 
fur  die  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums), 1  as  it  had  likewise 
been  the  thesis  wrhich  Zunz  had  undertaken  to  prove  in  his 
Gottesdienstliche  Vortrage  der  Juden. 2  But  Geiger 
brought  this  theoretical  program  into  conscious  connec- 
tion with  practical  effort,  and  thus  made  it  a  living  issue ; 
it  became  the  starting-point  of  the  second  chapter  in  the 
history  of  reform  in  Germany.  Geiger  was  convinced 
firmly  that  by  this  procedure  only  would  reform  be  able  to 
take  the  place  it  should  as  the  necessary  and  logical  inter- 
pretation of  Judaism  in  the  changed  conditions  wherein 
the  lives  of  its  confessors  were  passed  at  this  time.  "Juda- 
ism must  receive  its  scientific  foundation, ' '  he  once  wrote ; 
"its  truths  must  be  clearly  expressed,  its  principles  must 
be  probed,  purified,  established,  even  though  they  be  not 
finally  defined;  the  investigation  into  the  justification  and 
the  authority  of  its  sources  and  the  knowledge  of  these  are 

1  Supra,  38. 
a  Supra,  39. 


THE  SECOND  GENEEATION  OF  EEFOEMEKS  67 

the  constant  object  of  study.  Dependent  upon  this  theo- 
retical work  is  the  practical  purpose  which  keeps  in  view 
the  needs  of  the  community,  at  least  of  the  German  Jewish 
community;  from  this  union  of  the  theoretical  and  the 
practical  will  flow  the  insight  into  what  rules  of  life  are 
necessary,  and  which  institutions  and  religious  practices 
will  serve  indeed  to  improve  the  religious  life,  which  are 
moribund,  and  which  are  in  such  contradiction  with  our 
needs  and  conditions  as  to  preclude  any  further  helpful 
influence  from  them,  but  the  obstinate  adherence  to  which 
will  lame  strong  and  active  purposes.  This  knowledge  of 
the  true  significance  of  Jewish  doctrine  and  of  the  present 
must  arouse  to  united  effort  all  such  as  are  sincerely  inter- 
ested, so  that  a  transformation  of  Jewish  religious  practices 
in  harmony  with  the  changed  point  of  view  of  our  time 
may  result,  and  awaken  true  inner  conviction  and  noble 
religious  activity. ' ' *  Imbued  with  these  thoughts  Geiger 
began  his  active  work  in  the  cause  of  reform  by  establish- 
ing in  1835  the  critical  magazine  already  mentioned,  his 
Wissenscliaftliche  Zeitsclirift  fur  jiidische  Theologie;  this 
was  to  be  the  organ  for  the  expression  of  such  views  and 
for  the  publication  of  studies  on  Jewish  theology,  history, 
and  literature.  The  opening  article  from  the  pen  of  the 
youthful  editor  (he  was  twenty-five  years  of  age  at  the 
time)  is  in  a  manner  the  declaration  of  the  aim  and  pur- 
pose of  the  magazine;  it  is  entitled  "The  Judaism  of  our 
Time  and  its  Aims. ' '  Two  brief  extracts  will  set  forth  the 
trend  of  the  writer's  thought.  "Salvation  lies  not  in  the 
violent  and  reckless  excision  of  everything  which  has 
descended  to  us  from  the  past,  but  in  the  careful  search 
into  its  deeper  meaning,  and  in  the  aim  to  continue  to 
develop  historically  that  which  has  grown  historically  now 
that  we  have  become  organs  of  history,  checking  here,  help- 
ing forward  there,  following  the  wheel  of  time  here,  forcibly 
putting  our  hand  to  its  transformation  there,  and  constant- 
1A.Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  340. 


68  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ly  furthering  its  development  with  steadfast  purpose ; "  * 
and  a  little  further  along  he  writes:  "We  need  men  who 
show  that  Judaism  has  become  what  it  is  gradually,  and 
who  will  not  hesitate  to  demonstrate  by  valid  proofs  against 
such  as  are  biassed  in  their  views,  that  much  which  is  now 
believed  and  observed  is  not  tradition,  and  cannot  be  estab- 
lished by  a  correct  exegesis,  but  is  a  product  of  a  certain 
age,  and  can  therefore  be  removed  by  time. ' ' 2  Geiger 
was  rabbi  in  Wiesbaden  at  this  time ;  he  had  already  taken 
his  place  as  a  leader,  despite  his  youth ;  in  him  many  recog- 
nized the  coming  man  who  was  to  reconcile  Judaism  with 
the  new  life.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  just  at  the  time 
that  Geiger  was  beginning  his  work,  which  was  to  become 
devoted  to  the  reform  cause  more  and  more  pronouncedly 
with  the  passing  of  the  years,  another  youthful  savant  made 
his  appearance  in  the  world  of  letters  with  a  publication 
that  denounced  the  reform  movement  and  espoused  the 
cause  of  rabbinical  Judaism  with  positiveness  and  decision. 
Samson  Raphael  Hirsch,  the  rabbi  of  Oldenburg,  pub- 
lished anonymously  in  1836  his  Nineteen  Letters  of  Ben 
Uziel,  in  which  he  attempted  to  establish  the  thesis  that 
every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  written  and  the  oral  law  are  of 
eternal  validity.  The  letters  were  written  ostensibly  in 
answer  to  the  questions  and  doubts  of  an  inquirer,  whose 
inherited  traditional  beliefs  had  been  disturbed  sadly  by 
the  spirit  of  the  new  age.  The  letters  were  regarded  as  a 
polemical  utterance  against  the  reform  tendencies  of  the 
time,  and  aroused  much  attention  and  discussion.  Rabbin- 
ism,  as  well  as  Reform,  had  found  its  champion  in  a  scholar, 
who  combined  modern  learning  with  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  lore.  Abraham  Geiger  and  Samson  Raphael 
Hirsch  are  the  foremost  names  in  the  theological  history 
of  modern  Judaism,  as  representing  the  two  opposing 
streams  of  thought.  Not  even  his  bitterest  opponents 

'Vol.  I,  2. 
3  Ibid.,  11. 


THE  SECOND  GENEKATION  OF  REFOKMERS  69 

denied  Hirsch's  sincerity  and  the  intense  warmth  of  his 
religious  nature ;  but  in  order  to  explain  and  to  justify  the 
ceremonies  he  resorted  to  a  forced  symbolism.  He  had  no 
sympathy  with  the  cry  that  there  was  a  conflict  between 
rabbinico-ceremonial  Judaism  and  the  life  in  the  modern 
world ;  if  there  was  such  a  conflict,  life  had  to  be  conformed 
to  traditional  practice;1  Hirsch's  Judaism  spelt  antiqua- 
rianism  and  romanticism;  in  his  opinion,  the  ceremonial 
and  not  the  universal  prophetic  element  was  the  main  con- 
sideration; he  stated  his  position  broadly  thus:  ll Every 
distinction  between  eternal  and  temporary,  absolute  and 
relative  in  religious  affairs,  is  both  false  and  conducive  to 
falsehood."  This  statement  expresses  the  irreconcilable 
conflict  between  pabbinism  and  reform,  and  basing  upon 
utterances  like  this  the  reformer  is  unassailable  in  his  con- 
tention that  the  rabbinical  party  must  either  observe  every 
enactment  and  injunction  contained  in  the  rabbinical  codes 
or  else  in  honesty  concede  the  correctness  of  the  reform 
position.  If  the  progress  of  time  and  the  needs  of  life  in 
these  latter  days  have  made  impossible  the  observance  of 
even  one  Talmudical  or  rabbinical  enactment  of  unques- 
tioned validity  in  the  heyday  of  rabbinical  Judaism,  then 
the  reform  standpoint  is  justified.  It  is  not  a  matter  of 
quantity,  but  of  universality  in  observance.  Either  the 
fourfold  code  has  authority,  or  it  has  not.  If  it  has,  who 
shall  distinguish  between  its  ordinances  as  of  greater  or 
less  validity?  The  reformer  declares  openly  that  the 
Shulchan  Anik  has  no  binding  authority;  the  rabbinist 
presumably  accepts  the  code's  authority  and  yet  disregards 
many  of  its  injunctions,  as  indeed  he  must,  or  life  would 
be  impossible  in  the  modern  environment. 

The  ceremonialism  and  legalism  of  rabbinical  Judaism 
were  an  esoteric  product.  As  long  as  Jewry  was  a  close 
community  without  connection  with  the  world  this  esoteric 

1Hirsch  remained  faithful  to  this  point  of  view;  cf.  the  article, 
Der  Jude  und  seine  Zeit,  in  his  magazine,  Jeschurun,  I  (1855),  14-25. 


70  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

product  might  well  pass  muster  as  a  satisfactory  expression 
of  the  religious  consciousness.  But  when  Jewry  put  out 
feelers  and  began  to  share  in  the  larger  interests  of  the 
world,  when  the  badge  of  exclusion  was  exchanged  for  the 
insignia  of  citizenship,  when  Judaism  had  to  strive  with 
the  world  ?s  materialistic  forces  for  the  upper  hand  in  shap- 
ing the  life  and  thought  of  its  followers,  then  truly  rab- 
binism  no  longer  proved  a  competent  expression  of  the  re- 
ligious spirit ;  it  did  not  maintain  a  harmony  in  the  life  of 
the  Jew  within  and  without  the  synagogue,  nor  did  it  sat- 
isfy the  intellectual  and  spiritual  aspiration  of  thousands. 
Eeform  sought  to  remedy  this,  and  in  the  thought  of 
Geiger,  Holdheim,  their  contemporaries  and  successors,  it 
is  more  than  a  matter  of  disregarding-  rabbinical  enact- 
ments, more  than  a  system  of  pale  negations.  It  repre- 
sents a  positive  standpoint.  If  rabbinism  stands  for  the 
esoteric  system  of  custom  and  practice  developed  in  Juda- 
ism while  this  was  separated  from  the  surrounding  world, 
then  reform  is  expressive  of  the  broader  development  of 
the  universal  religious  element  in  Judaism.  The  absolute 
conflict  between  rabbinism  and  the  larger  life,  which  the 
Jew  entered  after  the  dawn  of  the  era  of  emancipation, 
bred  that  indifference  to  the  religion  which  marked  so 
many.  Judaism  had  ceased  to  mean  anything  for  them. 
In  its  rabbinical  guise  it  was  merely  an  echo  of  a  past  age. 
The  point  at  issue  was,  are  life  and  religion  things  apart? 
Judaism  had  always  answered  this  question  in  the  nega- 
tive. Its  guiding  spirits  had  attempted  always  to  estab- 
lish a  connection  between  the  religion  and  every  act  of  life ; 
this  in  truth  had  been  the  purpose  of  that  phase  of  the 
religion  which  we  designate  by  the  term  rabbinism.  But 
when  the  life  of  the  Jews  began  to  assume  the  larger  sweep, 
rabbinism,  as  it  had  found  definite  expression  in  the  four- 
fold code,  was  not  equal  to  the  task  of  religious  guidance. 
It  could  not  and  would  not  burst  its  legalistic  shell,  and 
hence  life  and  the  religion  drifted  further  and  further 


THE  SECOND  GENEEATION  OF  REFORMERS  71 

apart  in  the  new  time,  and  thus  there  was  violated  the  vital 
principle  of  their  necessary  and  intimate  connection;  this 
principle  it  was  the  purpose  and  desire  of  reform  to  con- 
firm in  a  changed  environment,  by  interpreting  the  eternal 
verities  of  the  religion  in  a  manner  that  should  appeal  to  a 
state  of  mind,  thought,  and  belief  as  distant  from  the  out- 
look of  Jewish  mediaevalism  as  is  pole  from  pole.  The 
reform  movement  then  is  not  a  religious  freak,  nor  was  it 
correctly  described  when  its  purpose  was  declared  by  its 
doughty  antagonist  to  be  "to  take  a  standpoint  outside  of 
Judaism,  to  accept  a  conception  derived  from  strangers  of 
the  purposes  of  human  life  and  the  object  of  liberty,  and 
then  in  correspondence  with  this  borrowed  notion  to  cut, 
curtail,  and  obliterate  the  tenets  and  ordinances  of  Juda- 
ism. " *  It  has  its  proper  place  in  the  development  of 
Judaism  as  a  religion,  the  prime  article  of  whose  practical 
endeavor  has  been  from  the  very  beginning  to  inform  all 
of  life  with  the  religious  spirit ;  it  is  in  this  sense  that  this 
movement  is  to  be  interpreted,  viz.  as  the  earnest  effort  to 
reconcile  the  life  of  the  modern  Jews  with  the  religion,  and 
to  make  the  religion  the  living  expression  of  latter-day 
aspirations.  The  fourth  and  fifth  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century  witnessed  many  practical  efforts  to  give  these  ideas 
shape ;  it  was  a  time  of  great  religious  activity,  notably  in 
Germany;  the  hosts  of  rabbinism  and  reform  were  pitted 
against  each  other  as  never  before.  The  leading  German 
Jewish  communities,  such  as  Berlin,  Breslau,  Frankfort- 
on-the-Main,  and  Hamburg,  were  the  scenes  of  notable  con- 
flicts between  the  parties;  three  rabbinical  conferences 
gathered  together  the  leading  exponents  of  the  teachings 
that  passed  under  the  name  of  reform :  the  agitation  spread 
also  to  other  lands,  such  as  Hungary  and  England.  The 
most  notable  of  these  episodes  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
movement  must  be  detailed  in  order  to  give  as  complete  a 
picture  as  may  be  of  religious  conditions  in  that  "fermen- 
tation period''  of  Jewish  life. 

1  The  Nineteen  Letters  of  Ben  TJziel  (Engl.  translation),  174.     New 
York,  1899. 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR 

THE  all-absorbing  episode  in  German  Jewish  religious 
life  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  decade  of  the  nineteenth 
century  was  the  strife  engendered  in  the  congregation  of 
Breslau  by  the  election  of  Abraham  Geiger  as  rabbinical 
colleague  to  S.  A.  Tiktin,  who  had  served  in  the  capacity 
of  rabbinical  chief  of  that  community  since  the  year  1821. 
Tiktin  was  a  typical  representative  of  the  old  school  of 
rabbis.  He  interpreted  his  duties  to  consist  chiefly  in  the 
answering  of  ritual  questions  and  in  the  presiding  over 
the  rabbinical  court  (Beth  Din),  which  still  had  jurisdic- 
tion in  such  matters  affecting  Jewish  life  as  the  granting 
of  divorce,  the  giving  of  ChaUtssah, *  etc.  He  was  totally 
deaf  to  the  voices  of  his  generation.  He  was  a  survival 
from  a  past  age,  and  could  not  adapt  himself  to  the  new 
surroundings.  The  Jewish  community  of  Breslau,  like 
other  congregations  in  the  large  cities  of  Germany,  was  no 
longer  satisfied  with  the  old  condition  of  affairs.  The  de- 
sire was  abroad  for  a  preacher,  who,  a  child  of  the  new  age, 
would  be  able  to  set  forth  the  truths  of  the  religion  in  the 
vernacular,  to  guide  and  teach  the  young,  many  of  whom 
were  being  repelled  by  religious  methods  that  were  unin- 
telligible and  incomprehensible  to  them,  and  to  win  back 
to  the  fold  scores  who  had  drifted  away,  because  the  re- 
ligious attitude  of  such  leaders  as  Tiktin  was  uncongenial 

1  The  ceremony  consequent  upon  the  refusal  to  marry  a  deceased 
brother's  childless  widow  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptural  injunc- 
tion, Deut.  xxv.  5-11.  Cf.  "Levirate  and  Chalitza"  in  Mielziner's 
Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  54-58.  Cincinnati,  1884. 

72 


THE  GEIGEB-TIKTIN  AFFAIE  73 

to  them.  The  latter  day  generation  was  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  official  interpretation  of  Judaism,  and  something 
had  to  be  done  to  stem  the  tide  of  dissatisfaction  and  in- 
differentism.  The  officials  of  the  community  therefore 
determined  to  secure  the  services  of  some  one  of  the  new 
school  of  rabbis,  a  man  cognizant  of  the  needs  of  his  genera- 
tion, in  sympathy  with  the  religious  spirit  of  the  time, 
capable  of  preaching  in  the  vernacular,  able  to  superintend 
the  religious  education  of  the  young  by  methods  in  conso- 
nance with  the  standards  obtaining  in  the  new  world  where- 
in the  Jews  were  now  living,  and  at  the  same  time  an  adept 
in  rabbinical  lore  and  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  tradi- 
tional duties  of  the  rabbinical  office.  In  a  word,  official 
demand  was  made  by  a  great  Jewish  congregation  in 
Germany  for  a  rabbi  who  was  to  combine  a  modern  scien- 
tific university  training  and  pulpit  eloquence  with  Jewish 
learning  and  rabbinical  knowledge. x  A  number  of  names 
were  considered,  but  the  choice  fell  upon  Geiger.  His 
views  were  well  known ;  he  had  declared  his  religious  stand- 
point clearly,  viz.,  that  the  requirements  of  the  age  had  to 
be  met,  that  the  Talmud  was  not  an  infallible  authority, 
that  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  religion  had  to  be  sub- 
jected to  research,  and  if  found  to  be  subversive  of  the 
spirit  of  true  religion  rather  than  helpful,  to  be  changed 
or  discarded;  ceremonies  that  furthered  the  religious  life 
in  one  generation  might  be  a  drawback  to  another ;  he  even 
quoted  the  Talmud  in  support  of  this,  adducing  the  Tal- 
mudical  dicta  that  only  such  religious  enactments  are 
valid  as  are  adopted  by  all  Israel  or  as  are  reconcilable 

1  The  exact  wording  of  this  notice  which  appeared  at  the  end  of 
March,  1838,  was  that  the  congregation  desired  a  "theologian  of 
comprehensive  Biblical  and  Talmudical  attainments,  thorough  scien- 
tific training  and  strict  religiosity,  who,  besides  fulfilling  the  func- 
tions of  a  dayan,  is  able  to  deliver  instructive  and  edifying  addresses 
every  Sabbath  in  pure  German";  eight  rabbis  applied  for  the  posi- 
tion, and  four  others,  Philippson,  Holdheim,  Herxheimer  and  Geiger, 
declared  their  willingness  privately  to  accept  the  position. 


74  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

with  the  demands  of  life  ;  1  he  did  not  then  object  to  cere- 
monies as  such,  but  to  the  abuse  of  ceremonialism  ;  he  had 
given  public  expression  to  these  thoughts  frequently. 
However,  he  felt  that  though  the  individual  might  enter- 
tain these  ideas,  yet  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Israel  he 
must  observe  what  had  traditional  sanction  until  an  author- 
ized body  had  declared  its  validity  at  an  end;  therefore, 
while  still  at  Wiesbaden,  he  had  issued  a  call  for  a  rab- 
binical conference  (the  first  call  of  its  kind)  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  problems  that  were  vexing  the  Jewish  com- 
munities, and  for  the  adoption  of  such  practical  measures, 
and  bringing  into  being  such  practical  institutions,  as  might 
meet  the  necessities  of  modern  Jewry.  This  conference 
will  be  discussed  in  its  proper  place.  He  was  thus  thor- 
oughly alive  to  the  situation.  After  six  years  of  service  in 
Wiesbaden  he  found  himself  cramped  in  his  activity  and 
unable  to  influence  the  communities  of  Nassau,  the  country 
whereof  Wiesbaden  was  the  capital,  as  he  wished  ;  he  there- 
fore determined  to  resign  and  return  to  his  birthplace, 
Frankf  ort-on-the-Main  ;  shortly  after  this  the  announce- 
ment of  the  Breslau  congregation  calling  for  applications 
for  the  rabbinical  post  appeared  ;  he  was  induced  to  preach 
there  on  July  21,  1838  ;  five  days  thereafter  he  was  elected 
to  fill  the  position. 

A  wretched  campaign  of  petty  personalities  and  worse 
began  to  be  waged  against  him  at  once.  One  of  the  most 
distressing  features  in  this  Geiger-Tiktin  affair,  as  in  all 
similar  controversies  between  the  rabbinical  and  the  reform 
parties  at  this  time,  was  the  introduction  of  personalities 
and  the  employment  of  any  measures  whatsoever  to  discredit 
the  opposition.  In  the  controversy  in  question  it  was  the 
Tiktin  party  that  was  guilty  of  these  tactics.  They  called 
into  play  every  imaginable  agency  to  fortify  their  own 


1  Talm.  Bab.  Aboda  Zara,  36  a,  ^&OBM  ^3  niD'K  aiyg. 
Hid.     •p'rnri    11  25m    nn  p    DK  K^N    imn  *>y  ni'U  pin; 
m  "no  Vs? 


THE  GEIGEE-TIKTIN  AFFAIE  73 

position  and  to  prevent  the  accession  of  Geiger  to  his  new 
office.  The  first  gun  in  the  campaign  was  fired  from  Wies- 
baden. A  communication  dated  from  that  place  appeared 
in  the  columns  of  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums, 
which  stated  that  Geiger  had  been  forced  to  leave  Wies- 
baden because  of  certain  religious  irregularities,  such  as 
the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  like.  I  mention  this 
disagreeable  incident  in  order  to  give  a  place  to  the  wise 
words  uttered  in  connection  therewith  by  the  famous 
champion  of  Jewish  emancipation  in  Germany,  Dr.  Gabriel 
Riesser.  In  addition  to  a  communication  from  the  officers 
of  the  congregation  of  Wiesbaden  contradicting  the 
calumnious  report,  a  letter  was  written  by  Riesser  in  de- 
fense of  Geiger.  In  this  letter  the  great  Jewish  statesman 
gave  utterance  to  some  general  statements  that  throw  light 
upon  the  situation.  He  wrote,  "May  those  who  represent 
advanced  views  bear  in  mind  that  true  wisdom  is  always 
joined  with  mildness,  that  malice  never  converts  the  erring 
but  strengthens  him  in  his  attitude,  and  that  it  is  very  un- 
fitting to  combat  error  (so  long  as  this  does  not  assume  the 
aspect  of  injustice)  with  the  weapons  of  hatred.  But  may 
those  others  who  do  battle  for  traditional  opinions  recognize 
that  personal  persecution,  intrigue,  and  calumny  have  as 
their  only  result  the  dishonoring  and  shaming  of  the  cause 
they  mean  to  serve. ' ' 1 

The  second  step  was  taken  by  the  Breslau  opposition; 
before  Geiger  could  assume  the  position  to  which  he  had 
been  elected  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  receive  his  natural- 
ization papers  as  a  citizen  of  Prussia.  Four  members  of 
the  congregation  petitioned  the  government  to  refuse  this ; 
they  charged  that  the  election  was  not  regular;  the  gov- 
ernment sustained  the  officials  of  the  congregation  who  had 
elected  the  candidate  by  a  vote  of  fifty-six  to  one ;  the  oppo- 
sition thereupon  accused  Geiger  of  being  an  innovator,  and 
quoted  the  various  governmental  edicts  of  former  years 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  II  (1838),  113. 


76       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

forbidding  innovations  in  the  Jewish  service ;  in  vain :  the 
government  seemed  to  have  passed  beyond  the  stage  of 
petty  interference  with  the  private  affairs  of  Jewish  con- 
gregations, as  was  apparent  from  the  answer  to  the  final 
great  effort  of  the  opposition.  They  memorialized  the 
government  in  a  detailed  statement  in  which  Geiger  was 
charged  with  holding  views  completely  and  thoroughly 
opposed  to  the  rabbinical  standpoint.  Politics,  whether 
civic  or  religious,  make  strange  bed-fellows.  The  pro- 
tagonists of  the  orthodox  rabbinical  party  of  Breslau  be- 
sought the  aid  of  a  notoriously  lax  Jew,  Joel  Jacobi  (who, 
in  fact,  was  converted  to  Catholicism  shortly  thereafter), 
in  the  preparation  of  the  document  which  they  desired  to 
present  to  the  government.  The  Minister  of  Public  Wor- 
ship submitted  portions  of  this  document  to  Geiger,  who 
had  settled  in  Berlin  while  these  negotiations  were  pend- 
ing, for  answer.  His  answer  was  so  satisfactory  that  the 
government  declared  the  election  valid,  and  granted  him 
his  naturalization  papers  on  December  6,  1839,  fifteen 
months  after  his  opponents  had  inaugurated  the  campaign 
against  him.  His  persistence  had  won  the  victory ;  during 
his  residence  in  Berlin  he  left  no  stone  unturned ;  he  kept 
the  matter  constantly  before  the  government  officials,  and 
was  justified  of  his  course  in  the  end. 1 

His  political  status  assured,  he  returned  to  Breslau  and 
delivered  his  inaugural  sermon  on  Jan.  4,  1840,  in  which 
he  sounded  the  keynote  of  his  thought  in  these  words: 
"Judaism  is  not  a  finished  tale;  there  is  much  in  its 
present  form  that  must  be  changed  or  abolished;  it  can 
assume  a  better  and  higher  position  in  the  world  only  if  it 

1  See  his  interesting  account  in  a  letter  to  his  friends,  M.  A.  Stern, 
published  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  148,  and  J.  Derenbourg, 
A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LX  (1896),  257-8.  (This  interesting  correspondence 
between  Geiger  and  Derenbourg,  extending  over  thirty  years,  was 
published  by  the  former's  son,  Prof.  Ludwig  Geiger,  twenty-two  years 
after  his  father's  death.) 


THE  GEIGEB-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  77 

will  rejuvenate  itself ;  all  should  unite  in  this  work. "  1  He 
gave  practical  earnest  of  his  thought  by  untiring  activity 
in  the  cause;  he  preached  in  the  vernacular,  instituted 
classes  for  the  instruction  of  the  young,  delivered  lectures 
on  Jewish  history  and  literature,  and  continued  his  literary 
work.  All  this,  too,  in  spite  of  th,e  fact  that  the  opposi- 
tion toiled  unremittingly  to  undermine  his  position.  Tik- 
tin,  as  a  matter  of  course,  refused  to  recognize  him  as  a 
colleague.  The  old  rabbi  was  fully  consistent  in  this ;  for 
him  Judaism  meant  the  unquestioning  observance  of  every 
Talmudical  injunction  no  matter  how  absurd  or  impossible ; 
for  him  too  the  time  element  in  religious  development  did 
not  exist;  whatever  was  prescribed  was  sacred;  to  remove 
one  stone  from  the  Talmudical  foundation  whereon  rab- 
binical Judaism  rested  meant  for  him  the  endangering  of 
the  safety  of  the  whole  edifice.  Hence  any  one  who  denied 
the  validity  of  each  and  any  Talmudical  enactment,  stood 
without  the  pale  of  Judaism.  His  standpoint  and  that  of 
Geiger  who  denied  such  inviolability  to  Talmudical  legis- 
lation were  irreconcilable.  The  two  interpretations  of 
Judaism  were  thus  brought  face  to  face  in  practical  life  as 
they  had  never  been  before.  The  vital  question  embodied 
in  the  conflict  attracted  the  attention  of  all  Jewry;  the 
agitation  in  the  Breslau  congregation  assumed  far  more 
than  local  importance;  a  great  principle  was  at  stake; 
stripped  of  all  side  issues  the  situation  narrowed  itself 
down  to  the  one  all-important  and  significant  point  as  to 
whether  a  man  who  examined  the  institutions  of  Judaism 
critically,  and  announced  his  honest  conclusions  as  to  their 
development  and  their  present  validity  could  hold  the  rab- 
binical office;  in  other  words,  whether  freedom  of  thought 
and  research  could  go  hand  in  hand  with  the  exercise  of 
rabbinical  functions.  Tiktin  and  his  sympathizers  main- 
tained that  the  whole  system  of  rabbinical  tradition  was 
sacred  and  not  to  be  desecrated  by  the  profane  touch  of 
1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IV,  66. 


78  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

investigation ;  what  the  former  generations  had  prescribed 
was  of  eternal  sanction  and  authority ;  as  he  put  it  tersely, 
"Whoever  disregards  any  command  or  prohibition  of  the 
Talmud  must  be  considered  an  unbeliever  and  as  standing 
without  the  pale  of  Judaism,  and  is  therefore  an  untrust- 
worthy witness. ' ' *  Hence  the  occupant  of  the  rabbinical 
office  must  suppress  all  desire  for  historical,  critical,  anrd 
scientific  study  of  the  rabbinical  literature ; 2  he  must  ap- 
proach it  not  as  as  an  investigator  but  as  a  blind  partisan ; 
this  was  the  sheerest  obscurantism;  the  last  refuge  of  in- 
trenched authority  is  to  deny  the  right  of  inquiry  into  the 
sources  of  such  authority;  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  is 
the  logical  outcome  of  this  obscurantism,  but,  much  as  the 
Tiktins,  the  Egers,  the  Bernays  and  their  fellows  declared 
for  Talmudic  and  rabbinic  infallibility  they  were  bound  to 
come  to  grief,  for  they  were  in  conflict  with  the  spirit  of 
Judaism  which  had  always  permitted  the  widest  freedom 
of  thought. 

The  situation  in  the  congregation  was  becoming  intoler- 
able. Rabbinical  jurisdiction  was  suspended  practically 
because  of  Tiktin's  persistent  refusal  to  bow  to  the  will  of 
the  congregation.  Geiger  continued  in  the  even  tenor  of 
his  way ;  his  opponents  gave  vent  to  their  spite  in  a  number 
of  unseemly  acts,  undignified  incidents  in  the  controversy, 
which  are  best  passed  over  in  silence. 3  The  officers  of  the 
congregation,  in  their  desire  to  relieve  the  situation,  sug- 
gested that  Geiger  be  merely  the  preacher  and  not  the 
rabbi  of  the  congregation.  This  separation  of  the  office 
into  two  parts  as  a  solution  of  the  difficulty  was  resorted 
to  by  a  number  of  congregations  in  those  days,  as  Vienna. 

1  Darstellung   des  Sachverhaltnisses  in  seiner  Mesigen  Rabbinats- 
angelegenheit;  Breslau,  1842,  p.  26. 

2  Holdheim,  G.  J.  R.  G.  B.,  63,  note  6. 

8  These  incidents  are  given  in  detail  in  Geiger 's  history  of  the  con- 
troversy, Ansprache  an  meine  Gemeinde  (Breslau,  1842),  and  in 
Schreiber-'s  Reform  Judaism  and  its  Pioneers  (Spokane,  1892),  306  ff. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  79 

Prague,  and  somewhat  later  Berlin.  It  implied  the  recog- 
nition of  an  old  and  a  new  Judaism,  the  old  represented  by 
the  rabbi,  a  strict  rabbinist  of  the  Tiktin  type  and  the  new 
by  a  young  man  of  modern  education.  The  rabbinical  and 
the  homiletic  functions  were  thus  kept  absolutely  distinct. 
The  rabbi  presided  over  the  Beth  Din,  and  was  supreme  in 
all  matters  of  ritual;  the  preacher  delivered  sermons  in 
the  vernacular  and  conducted  the  educational  activities  of 
the  congregation.  Geiger  refused  to  be  a  party  to  any  such 
compromise.  He  claimed  that  the  division  of  Judaism 
into  two  parts,  the  one  quick  and  the  other  dead,  which  this 
arrangement  presupposed,  harmed  the  religion  incalculably 
in  the  estimation  of  its  own  followers.  It  made  the  form- 
ation of  two  parties  inevitable,  the  one,  following  the 
leadership  of  the  rabbi,  must  look  upon  the  preacher  as  an 
unbeliever,  while  the  other,  adhering  to  the  preacher,  would 
consider  the  rabbi  an  ignorant  obscurantist ;  such  states  of 
mind  must  lead  without  fail  to  a  schism  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  thought,  and  Judaism  would  be  in  a  sorrier  condition  in 
the  end  than  it  had  been  at  the  beginning.  No,  the  spirit- 
ual guide  of  the  congregation  must  combine  within  himself 
both  functions :  in  him  past  and  present  must  meet ;  such 
an  artificial  distinction  was  purely  opportunistic ;  if  such  a 
division  of  functions  were  sanctioned  how  could  the  con- 
tinuity of  historical  Judaism  ever  be  impressed  upon  the 
present  generation  ?  *  Geiger  was  undoubtedly  correct  in 
this  position,  and  he  contributed  greatly  towards  a  correct 
appreciation  of  the  situation  by  his  firm  and  immovable 
stand.  If  the  new  conditions  in  Jewry,  arising  from  the 
civil  and  educational  emancipation,  demanded  a  readjust- 
ment all  along  the  line  of  Jewish  life  and  thought,  then 
the  real  leaders  would  be  men,  who,  thoroughly  versed  in 
the  lore  of  the  past,  were  at  the  same  time  of  the  present ; 

1  Ansprachc  an  meine  Gemeinde,  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  II, 
265;  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  256;  cf.  also  his  Jiidische  Geschichte  von  1830 
bis  zur  Gegenwart  (1849)  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  II,  265. 


80  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  breach  between  the  traditionalists  and  the  moderns 
could  be  healed  only  if  the  people  had  ocular  evidence  of 
the  fact  of  the  continuity  of  Judaism  in  the  attainments 
and  activity  of  the  rabbi-preacher,  the  meeting-point  of  the 
two  streams,  tradition  and  modern  culture,  that  would  have 
to  coalesce  were  Judaism  to  be  a  living  force  in  the  modern 
time  and  under  the  new  conditions.  Only  a  keen  mind 
like  Geiger's  could  pierce  to  the  heart  of  this  matter  which 
involved  really  the  whole  question  as  to  whether  Judaism 
was  a  religion  that  could  adapt  itself  to  the  changing  needs 
of  successive  generations  or  a  closed  system  without 
capability  of  development.  If  the  former,  then  the  sepa- 
ration of  the  functions  of  the  office  was  justified,  and  the 
rabbi,  the  representative  of  the  principle  of  fixedness,  was 
the  true  leader,  while  the  preacher  was  simply  the  represen- 
tative of  a  latter-day  fad  superimposed  upon  Judaism. 
If  the  latter,  then  such  a  separation  was  invalid,  for  the 
functions  of  the  preacher  were  simply  the  modern  expres- 
sion of  the  rabbi's  duties. 1  Hence,  although  in  the  Jewish 
annals  of  the  time  some  men  are  designated  rabbi  and 
others  preacher,  showing  that  this  artificial  distinction  was 
sanctioned  and  officially  recognized  in  some  places,  we  can- 
not but  feel  that  Geiger  was  correct  in  his  attitude  and  had 
the  true  conception. 

Here  then  was  an  impasse.  Tiktin  would  not  consent  to 
serve  with  his  newly  elected  colleague,  and  Geiger  would 
not  agree  to  the  separation  of  the  functions.  The  relations 
became  so  strained  that  the  governing  body  of  the  congre- 
gation was  forced  to  suspend  Tiktin  from  office.  In  order 
to  fortify  himself  in  the  position  he  had  taken,  Tiktin  had 
addressed  various  rabbis  of  Upper  Silesia  for  an  expres- 
sion of  opinion.  He  obtained  responses  from  the  rabbis 
(all  of  the  olden  school)  of  Posen,  Lissa,  Beuthen,  Lubinitz, 
Nicolai,  Katibor,  Myslovitz,  Rybniek,  Guttentag,  Rosenberg, 
and  Landsberg,  all  of  whom,  as  was  to  be  expected,  upheld 

1  Cf.  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  173. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  81 

him  in  the  stand  he  had  taken;  nine  of  their  number  ad- 
dressed the  administrative  body  of  the  congregation  di- 
rectly.    In  June,  1842,  Tiktin  published  a  pamphlet  en- 
titled Darstellung  des  Sachverhdltnisses  in  seiner  hiesigen 
Rabbinatsangelegenheit  wherein  he  presented  his  side  of 
the  case ;  he  included  in  this  the  response  of  Solomon  Eger, 
rabbi  of  Posen,  the  response  of  the  rabbinate  of  Lissa,  and 
the  address  of  the  nine  rabbis.     This  was  an  appeal  to  the 
larger  Jewish  world,  and  the  controversy  passed  beyond 
the   local  stage.     Tiktin   and  his   colleagues  stated  their 
position  clearly  and  unmistakably.     They  read  Geiger  and 
all  who  thought  as  he  did  out  of  Judaism.     They  declare  1 
the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Talmud  a  dogma  of  Judaism. 
They  denied  the  right  of  freedom  of  thought  and  investi- 
gation as  far  as  any  traditional  form,  custom,  or  ceremony 
that  was  observed  in  Israel  was  concerned.    Never  before 
had  these  things  been  so  apodictically  stated.     The  issue 
was  now  clear.     According  to  these  rabbis  Judaism  was  a 
fixed  and   immutable  system.     Every  minor  law  codified 
in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  was  of  equal  validity  with  any  re- 
ligious command  of  the  Bible ;  such  a  law  as  ordered  a  mar- 
ried woman  to  conceal  her  natural  hair  beneath  a  wig  had 
equal  sanction  with  the  Ten  Commandments.     Absurd  as 
this  seems  when  thus  baldly  stated,  it  is  really  the  stand- 
point of  rabbinical  Judaism  as  appears  from  the  statements 
of  Geiger 's  opponents.     The  chief  rabbi  of  Posen,  Solo- 
mon Eger,  declared  that  ' '  only  he  can  be  considered  a  con- 
forming Jew  who  believes  that  the  divine  law  book,  the 
Torah,  together  with  all  the  interpretations  and  explana- 
tions found  in  the  Talmud,  was  given  by  God  himself  to 
Moses  on  Mt.  Sinai  to  be  delivered  to  the  Jews  and  to  be 
observed  by  them  for  ever;  further,  Moses  delivered  the 
oral   and   written    law  revealed  to   him   to   his   successor 
Joshua,  Joshua  to  the  so-called  Zekenim  (elders),  these  to 
the  prophets,  and  the  prophets  to  the  men  of  the  Great 
Assembly.     These  oral  divine  traditions  are  the  very  same 
6 


82  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

as,  collected  in  the  Talmud,  we  are  commanded  to  obey. 
He,  however,  who  departs  from  these  paths,  who  believes 
in  the  authenticity  of  the  written  law  alone  as  divinely 
given,  but  considers  the  interpretation  of  this  written  law 
as  Talmudically  ordained  and  prescribed  a  purely  human 
work,  subject  to  changes,  is  not  to  be  considered  an  Israel- 
ite, but  belongs  to  the  sect  of  Karaites,  who  separated 
themselves  from  the  Jewish  as  well  as  the  Christian 
religion. ' ' 1 

This  dogma  was  stated  even  more  explicitly  by  the  rab- 
binate of  Lissa :  ' '  All  commandments  and  prohibitions  con- 
tained in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  that,  too,  in  the  form  that 
they  have  received  by  Talmudical  interpretation,  are  of 
divine  origin,  binding  for  all  time  upon  the  Jews,  and  not 
one'  of  these  commandments  or  prohibitions,  be  its  char- 
acter what  it  may,  can  ever  be  abolished  or  modified  by  any 
human  authority. ' ' 2 

These  statements  represent  the  standpoint  of  Tiktin  and 
his  confreres,  and  basing  upon  this  interpretation  of  what 
is  authoritative  in  Judaism,  Tiktin  accused  the  governing 
board  of  the  congregation  of  having  "selected  a  day  an  in 
disregard  of  and  opposition  to  the  religious  convictions  of 
well-nigh  the  entire  congregation  as  well  as  of  the  tradi- 
tional Judaism  of  a  thousand  years'  standing;  a  day  an 
who  in  spoken  and  written  discourse  denies  unreservedly 
the  authoritative  validity  of  this  traditional  Judaism  and 
whose  call  and  mission  appear  to  be  to  extirpate  it  root  and 
branch  for  all  time ! ' ' 

The  position  could  be  stated  no  more  strongly  and  defi- 
nitely than  thus.  These  men  acted  and  wrote  according 
to  their  light.  Holding  the  convictions  that  he  did  Tiktin 
could  not  have  done  otherwise,  and  although  the  petty 
persecution  and  the  childish  petulance  which  he  and  his 
party  indulged  in  are  inexcusable,  yet  can  he  not  but  be 

lDarstellung  des  Sachverhaltnisses,  etc.    Appendix  1. 
2  Ibid.     Appendix  2. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIE  83 

respected  for  the  firm  stand  which  he  took  in  support  of 
his  beliefs.  However  narrow,  bigoted,  and  fanatic  he  and 
his  partisans  may  be  considered  to  have  been,  it  may  not 
be  forgotten  that  he  and  they  believed  sincerely  that  Geiger 
and  the  reformers  were  undermining  Judaism.  The  fact 
of  the  matter  was,  however,  that  Geiger  was  misrepresented 
somewhat  in  the  statement  of  Tiktin  which  has  been  quoted 
above.  He  had  declared  openly  and  clearly  that  the  same 
man  could  and  should  separate  his  rabbinical  from  his 
literary  activity,  i.  e.  a  rabbi  might  as  a  critical  student 
declare  against  the  propriety  and  validity  of  some  or  many 
practices  in  Judaism,  and  yet  he  must  observe  them  in  his 
practical  activity  as  rabbi  until  they  be  changed  or 
abolished  by  the  concerted  opinion  or  action  of  competent 
leaders  and  authorities.  Thus  the  rabbi  as  student  in  his 
investigations  into  the  origin  and  significance  of  the  Mosaic 
institutions  of  chalitzah  (releass  from  levirate  marriage), 
might  be  persuaded  that  this  act  is  out  of  place  under 
modern  conditions,  and  yet  in  his  official  capacity  he  must 
countenance  it  until  the  religious  authorities  of  the  genera- 
tion declare  that  the  act  is  to  be  no  longer  performed  among 
Jews.  The  individual  rabbi  might  hold  and  promulgate 
the  most  advanced  and  radical  views  on  the  significance 
of  traditional  doctrines  and  practices,  but  in  the  conduct 
of  his  office  he  must  conform  to  tradition  so  long  as  a  com- 
petent and  recognized  authoritative  body  had  not  legislated 
otherwise.  In  other  words,  liberality  of  thought  and  in- 
vestigation and  orthodoxy  in  practice  could  be  combined 
in  one  and  the  same  person.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is, 
however,  that  the  spirit  of  the  age  worked  silently,  and 
many  a  rabbinical  enactment  and  many  a  practice  of  afore- 
times  went  by  the  board  simply  because  they  had  become 
impossible  under  the  changed  circumstances  in  which  the 
people  lived.  Therefore  hundreds  of  the  injunctions  which 
constituted  the  body  of  rabbinical  observance  up  to  the 
nineteenth  century  passed  out  of  Jewish  life  without  special 


84  THE  KEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

enactment  by  any  authority,  for  the  simple  reason  that 
they  had  lost  all  meaning.  Life  legislated  them  out  of 
existence.  The  spirit  of  the  age  was  indeed  the  new  revela- 
tion. 

But  to  return  to  our  narrative.  The  governing  board  of 
the  Breslau  congregation  was  put  on  the  defensive  by  the 
manifesto  issued  by  Tiktin  and  his  party ;  they  were  accused 
of  having  subverted  the  traditions  of  Judaism  by  their  act 
of  electing  a  rabbi  whose  explanation  of  the  religion  was 
different  from  the  orthodox  interpretation.  There  was, 
however,  a  much  farther-reaching  point  involved.  The 
rabbis  of  Posen,  Lissa,  and  Upper  Silesia  had  declared  that 
the  whole  body  of  Talmudical  and  rabbinical  legislation 
was  inviolable;  to  doubt  its  eternal  validity  was  heresy; 
they  had  read  out  of  Judaism  any  one  who  denied  the 
dogma  of  Talmudical  infallibility;  hence  they  practically 
denied  freedom  of  thought.  This  was  vital.  Were  free 
thinking  and  free  investigation  compatible  with  the  rab- 
binical office  or  no?  was  the  rabbi  simply  an  interpreter 
of  what  the  past  had  handed  down,  or  was  he  permitted  to 
flood  each  and  any  institution  and  doctrine  with  the  light 
of  investigation  ?  was  it  true  that  Judaism  had  ever  denied 
freedom  of  thought?  The  officials  of  the  congregation 
determined  to  submit  these  all-important  questions  to 
recognized  leaders  of  thought  in  Jewry.  They  stated  the 
point  at  issue  well  and  clearly  in  the  address  which  they 
presented  to  these  leaders.  They  wrote  thus:  "The  ques- 
tion to  be  decided  is  whether  progress  is  possible  in  Juda- 
ism or  whether  strict  fixedness  is  commanded ;  whether  the 
great  number  of  our  co-religionists,  who  entertain  opinions 
about  the  value  and  validity  of  Talmudical  enactments 
different  from  those  held  in  former  centuries,  may  still 
claim  the  name  Jew  or  are  to  be  considered  unbelievers; 
whether  Jewish  theology  can  endure  scientific  treatment 
and  free  investigation  or  whether  the  traditional  views 
which  are  at  variance  with  all  culture  may  not  be  touched, 


THE  GEIGEB-TIKTIN  AFFAIB  85 

nay,  not  even  examined ;  and  whether  a  man  who  champions 
openly  and  strives  eagerly  to  spread  a  free,  scientific,  Jew- 
ish-theological conviction  is  entitled  to  occupy  the  rab- 
binical office  or  is  unfitted  for  it.  Tiktin  has  emphasized 
these  points  with  unmistakable  clearness,  and  has  declared 
most  positively  the  non-permissibility  of  any  progress;  the 
impossibility  of  even  the  slightest  change;  Eger  (of  Posen) 
has  even  stated  that  any  one  who  deviates  from  the  Tal- 
mudical  interpretation  of  Biblical  commands  must  be  con- 
sidered an  unbeliever  and  a  renegade  from  the  House  of 
Israel." 

Such  being  the  state  of  affairs,  they  felt  themselves  called, 
upon  to  obtain  expressions  of  opinion  on  these  points  from 
men  of  standing  and  authority.  They  received  a  number 
of  important  responses  which  they  published  as  a  reply  to 
Tiktin 's  Darstellung  in  two  volumes  in  September,  1842, 
and  March,  1843,  under  the  title  Rabbinical  Responses  on 
the  Compatibility  of  'Free  Investigation  with  the  Exercise 
of  Rabbinical  Functions.1  The  first  volume  contained  the 
responses  of  the  Rabbis  Joseph  Abraham  Friedlander  of 
Brilon,  Aaron  Chorin  of  Arad,  Samuel  Holdheim  of 
Schwerin,  B.  Wechsler  of  Oldenburg,  Abraham  Kohn  of 
Hohenems,  S.  Herxheimer  of  Bernburg,  David  Einhorn 
of  Hoppstadten,  M.  Hess  of  Stadt  Lengsfeld,  M.  Gutmann 
of  Redwitz,  and  M.  Wassermann  of  Miihringen ;  the  second 
volume  included  the  responses  of  the  Rabbis  B.  Levi  of 
Giessen,  Joseph  Aub  of  Baireuth,  Joseph  Kahn  of  Trier, 
Joseph  Maier  of  Stuttgart,  L.  Adler  of  Kissingen,  Leopold 
Stein  of  Burgkunstadt,  and  E.  Grunebaum  of  Landau. 2 
This  was  the  most  important  publication  that  had  yet 

1  Eabbinische  Gutachten  uber  die  V  ertrdglichkeit  der  freien  For- 
schung  mit  dem  Rabbineramte. 

2  The  response  of  Eabbi  Fassel  of  Prossnitz,  Hungary,  was  not 
included  in  these  volumes  for  reasons  stated  by  the  governing  board 
of  the  Breslau  congregation  in  the  preface  to  the  second  volume. 
The  response  was  published  in  the  Literaturblatt  des  Orients  (Nos. 
5-8,  1843). 


86       THE  EEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

appeared  in  this  agitated  religious  period,  more  important 
indeed  than  a  similar  collection  of  responses  published  a 
short  time  previously  by  the  officers  of  the  Hamburg  con- 
gregation on  the  subject  of  the  new  edition  of  their  prayer- 
book,  1  for  these  responses  called  forth  by  the  Geiger-Tiktin 
affair  really  covered  the  whole  field  of  the  justification  of 
reforms  in  Judaism.  Because  of  this  it  is  necessary  and 
profitable  to  quote  characteristic  and  telling  paragraphs 
from  these  responses,  for  they  express  well  the  tendencies 
of  the  religious  thought  of  the  time. 

Joseph  Abraham  Friedlander,  rabbi  of  Westphalia,  one 
of  the  few  older  rabbis  who  appreciated  that  a  new  era  had 
arisen  from  Israel  and  that  a  reformation  was  imperative 
if  Judaism  was  to  be  something  more  than  a  lifeless  sur- 
vival from  a  past  age, 2  wrote,  ' '  Mishnah  and  Talmud  were 
not  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  but  are  a  collection  of 
interpretations  of  the  law  dating  from  a  later  age.  They 
have  no  eternal  obligatory  authority.  The  ancient  sages 
and  interpreters  did  not  desire  to  prevent  later  generations 
from  modifying  their  decisions  in  accordance  with  the 
changed  needs  and  circumstances  of  their  age,  nor  even 
from  adding  to  or  subtracting  from  them ;  on  the  contrary, 
they  laid  down  the  most  widely  differing  subjective  inter- 
pretations in  order  that  every  one  might  be  able  to  choose 
whatever  view  appealed  most  to  him. "  3  "  The  reason  for 
obeying  the  commands  and  ceremonies  is  always  given 
(Exod.  xii.  17;  Lev.  xxvi.  43).  The  teachers  of  all  ages 
have  done  likewise;  they  investigated  thoroughly  the  rea- 
sons for  all  enactments.  And  for  this  reason,  the  Israelites 
of  aforetimes  reformed  the  ritual  as  often  as  they  con- 
sidered it  necessary,  and  changed  conditions  have  not 
diminished  in  the  least  this  right  to  reform  for  modern 

1  Theologische  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des  neuen  israelitischen  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg.     Hamburg,  1842. 
3  Supra,  52. 
8  Edbbinische  Gutachten  iiber  die  V  ertraglicKkeit  u.  s.  w.,  I,  4. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  87 


Jews.  '  '  l  The  rabbis  followed  to  the  utmost  consequences 
the  principle  nrpn  iW  nmin  "it  was  a  need  of  the  hour." 
Thus  we  read  in  the  Talmud  that  a  certain  man  who  rode 
an  ass  on  the  Sabbath  was  condemned  to  death  by  a  Beth 
Din.  The  court  was  reminded  that  such  a  penalty  was  not 
prescribed  in  the  Law  for  this  offence.  The  court  an- 
swered, "the  time  demands  it,  for  there  are  too  many  vio- 
lators of  the  Sabbath."2 

Aaron  Chorin,  the  aged  rabbi  of  Arad  in  Moravia,  who 
at  this  time  was  seventy-six  years  of  age,  was  the  most 
celebrated  of  the  older  rabbis  among  the  progressists.  3 
He  had  suffered  persecution  for  his  reform  tendencies  and 
activities.  He  urged  particularly  the  convening  of  a 
synod  which  should  decreo  the  necessary  reforms  and  place 
the  stamp  of  authority  upon  them.  He  had  broken  many 
a  lance  in  the  cause  of  progress  in  a  number  of  well-known 
writings.  4  He  cited  in  his  response  many  instances  from 
the  Talmud  and  the  rabbinical  writings  in  support  of  his 
position.  He  stated  as  a  general  principle  the  following: 
"It  must  be  confessed  that  customs,  laws,  and  ceremonies 
are  so  absolutely  necessary  for  every  religious  community 
that  its  existence  is  almost  unthinkable  without  them.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  only  repellent  to  human  nature, 
but  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  and  sublimity  of  the 
divine  will,  that  any  ceremonies  connected  with  the  relig- 
ious services,  ritual  observances,  or  ascetic  institutions 
should  be  considered  banding  and  unchangeable  for  all 
times  and  places  under  all  changing  conditions  and  circum- 
stances. '  ?  5  He  exclaims  impatiently  in  a  note  :  "I  do  not 
know  whether  I  ought  to  consider  the  statement  of  the  rab- 

1  Ibid.,  I,  9. 

2Eabbinische  Gutachten  iiber  die  V  ertrdglichkeit  u.  s.  w.,  I,  12. 
8  Supra,  47. 

*  rmOK  e>iO,  Prague,  1803;    mjn  in,  Vienna,   1820;     nitrfl  poy, 
Ofen,  1837;  and    D';pT  •tfn,  Vienna,  1839. 
1  Eabbinische  Gutachten,  I,  IS. 


88  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

bis  (quoted  by  Tiktin  in  his  Darstellung)  to  the  effect  that 
any  divergence  from  a  Talmudical  opinion  is  absolutely 
forbidden  as  involuntary  delusion  or  intentional  blindness. 
Why,  the  greater  part  of  the  Talmud  is  merely  an  aggregate 
of  contradictory  and  conflicting  opinions;  and  we  are  to 
consider  all  this  as  divine  revelation,  dispassionate  criticism 
of  which  lays  one  open  to  excommunication ! "  x  "  It  is  a 
principle  of  Jewish  tradition  that  every  sanhedrin  has  the 
duty  to  uphold  the  religion  (mri  ptrtf)  for  its  day  and 
generation,  and  in  order  to  further  the  welfare  of  the  com- 
munity (D^iyn  ppn  "OBO)  it  shall  not  only  simply  cling  to 
the  dry  letter  of  the  law,  but  be  guided  by  its  spirit,  and 
bind  and  loosen  according  to  the  needs  of  the  age,  even  as 
Maimonides  says  (Mamrim,  II,  4),  ' every  Beth  Din,  even 
though  it  fall  behind  its  predecessor  in  knowledge  and  in 
numbers,  is  warranted  to  abrogate  for  an  indefinite  time 
the  ordinances  of  that  preceding  Beth  Din;  for  the  ordi- 
nances of  a  Beth  Din  cannot  possibly  be  of  greater  author- 
ity than  those  of  the  Torah,  which  also  are  suspended  in- 
definitely, because  this  is  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of 
our  faith. '  " 2  And  he  declares,  in  direct  reference  to  the 
case  at  issue:  "It  is  absolutely  against  the  spirit  of  our 
holy  religion  to  either  condemn  or  excommunicate  a  rabbi 
because  of  individual  views  or  opinions  concerning  the 
temporary  forms  of  our  faith.  In  as  far  as  his  activity 
furthers  that  higher  religious  and  moral  tendency,  which  is 
the  chief  object  of  our  faith,  he  is  deserving  of  that  appre- 
ciation and  respect  which  ought  never  to'  be  withheld  from 
him  who  strives  to  be  true  to  the  duties  of  the  holiest  voca- 
tion, and  who  perseveres  courageously  despite  all  the  ob- 
stacles placed  in  his  path. ' ' 3 

Samuel  Holdheim,  second  in  importance  only  to  Geiger 
in  the  history  of  the  movement  for  reform  in  Judaism, 

1  Rdblinische  Gutachten,  I,  22. 
*IUd.,  23. 
•Ibid.,  32. 


THE  GEIGEE-TIKTIN  AFFAIE  89 

wrote  a  lengthy  response,  in  which  he  discussed  thoroughly 
the  true  significance  of  tradition  in  Judaism.  Because  of 
Holdheim's  great  importance  as  a  leader  in  the  reform 
movement,  space  must  be  given  here  to  a  brief  characteriza- 
tion of  his  life  and  thought.  He  represents  the  interesting 
evolution  from  extreme  orthodoxy  to  radical  reform.  Born 
in  Kempen  in  the  province  of  Posen  in  1806,  he  received 
a  thorough  Talmudical  education,  and  became  an  adept  in 
Talmudical  dialectics.  His  great  Talmudical  attainments 
were  supplemented  by  modern  philosophical  and  literary 
culture  acquired  in  the  universities  of  Prague  and  Berlin. 
He  was  appointed  rabbi  of  the  congregation  of  Frankfort 
on  the  Oder  in  1836,  and  almost  at  once  became  a  leading 
figure  in  the  Jewish  religious  world.  He  espoused  the 
cause  of  reform  in  sermon  and  pamphlet,  pointing  out  the 
distinction  between  the  temporary  and  the  eternal  in  relig- 
ion, between  the  " perishable  shell"  and  the  "everlasting 
kernel"  of  divine  truth.  He  became  chief  rabbi  of  Meck- 
lenburg-Schwerin  in  1840.  In  an  answer  to  an  anonymous 
assailant  who  had  attacked  the  new  edition  of  the  Hamburg 
prayer-book  issued  in  1841,  he  made  his  position  on  the 
significance  of  tradition  and  the  Talmud  very  clear.  He 
believed  with  Geiger  in  the  principle  of  tradition  but  not 
in  the  infallibility  of  the  Talmud  as  an  authority ;  the  Tal- 
mud is  the  product  of  many  centuries  and  of  many  minds, 
and  the  most  divergent  opinions  are  to  be  found  in  it;  he 
claimed  that  to  demand  unquestioned  acceptance  of  every 
expression  of  every  rabbi  was  to  confuse  things  human  and 
divine.  His  chief  contribution  towards  a  solution  of  the 
vexing  problems  of  his  day  was  his  book  published  in  1843, 
Autonomy  of  the  Rabbis  and  the  Principle  of  the  Jewish 
Marriage  Laws. *  The  direct  cause  for  the  writing  of  this 
book  lay  in  the  peculiar  state  of  affairs  in  Mecklenburg 
touching  marriage  and  inheritance  among  the  Jews;  these 

1  TJeber  die  Autonomie  der  Eabbinen  und  das  Prinzip  der  judischen 
Ehe. 


90  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

were  regulated  according  to  Talmudical  legislation,  and 
there  were  frequent  difficulties.  Holdheim  advanced  the 
thesis  that  the  laws  of  the  state  and  not  Talmudic  legisla- 
tion should  regulate  these  things.  An  additional  incentive 
to  action  on  his  part  at  this  time  arose  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  Prussian  Government  was  contemplating  an 
Act  of  Incorporation  for  its  Jewish  subjects;  by  this  Act 
the  Jews  were  to  be  incorporated  into  separate  communities 
of  their  own,  apart  from  their  fellow-citizens.  Holdheim 
contended  against  this  with  all  his  might.  He  urged  that 
the  Jews  were  no  longer  aliens  but  natives,  and  did  not 
desire  a  separate  incorporation.  The  contemplated  legisla- 
tion would  be  a  decided  step  backward  from  the  law  of 
1812,  which  had  declared  the  Jews  to  be  distinct  in  their 
religion  only. *  The  modern  life  of  the  Jew  demanded 
three  things:  first,  that  the  autonomy  of  the  rabbis  must 
cease;  secondly,  that  religious  affairs  must  be  separated 
from  civil  and  political  issues;  and  thirdly,  that  marriage 
is  a  civil  act  according  to  the  teachings  of  Judaism.  In 
other  words,  he  insisted  that  Jewish  nationality  had  come 
to  an  end  long  ago,  and  that  the  Jews  are  as  all  other  citi- 
zens in  all  national  and  civic  functions,  and  are  distinct  only 
in  their  purely  religious  concerns. 

As  time  went  on  Holdheim  grew  more  and  more  radical 
in  his  views.  He  was  elected  rabbi  of  the  newly  organized 
reform  congregation  of  Berlin  in  1846;  in  his  book,  The 
Principles  of  Reformed  Judaism,  published  in  1847,  he 
develops  at  length  the  thought  of  the  permanent  elements 
in  Judaism  as  contrasted  with  the  transitory.  His  radi- 
calism of  thought  found  practical  expression  in  such  ex- 
treme steps  as  declaring  valid  marriages  between  Jews  and 
such  as  hold  the  monotheistic  belief,  and  the  introduction 
of  services  on  Sunday.  The  barest  outline  of  his  thought 
has  been  sketched  here  because  his  views  on  the  many  sub- 
jects involved  in  the  religious  controversies  of  the  period 

1  Supra,  31. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  91 

will  be  given  throughout  these  pages. a  He  went  to  much 
greater  lengths  in  the  practical  application  of  his  ideas  than 
did  Geiger,  who,  radical  as  he  was  in  thought,  remained 
more  conservative  in  practice  than  did  his  great  contem- 
porary. Holdheim  discarded  altogether  in  his  practice  as 
in  his  thought  the  particularistic  features  that  character- 
ized traditional  Judaism ;  his  purpose  was  to  teach  the  uni- 
versal in  religion  as  it  had  found  expression  in  Jewish 
thought ;  in  his  campaign  against  the  excesses  of  Talmudic 
formalism,  he  made  the  serious  error  of  quite  underestimat- 
ing the  place  of  ceremony  in  the  religious  life.  However, 
the  service  that  he  performed  in  setting  forth  clearly  and 
unequivocally  the  philosophy  of  the  reform  movement  is 
invaluable ;  his  pamphlets,  books,  and  sermons  are  a  treas- 
ure trove  of  high  thoughts  on  the  eternal  realities  and  per- 
manent verities  of  the  Jewish  faith.  In  his  response  on 
the  Geiger-Tiktin  affair  he  treated  particularly  the  ques- 
tion of  the  place  of  tradition  in  Judaism.  He  contended 
that  the  duty  of  the  Jew  in  this  matter  was  to  believe  in 
the  principle  of  tradition  as  exemplified  in  the  Talmud, 
but  not  in  the  Talmud  as  such  nor  in  the  utterances  of  the 
rabbis  of  ancient  times  as  such.  He  speaks  of  this  prin- 
ciple of  tradition  as  "the  principle  of  eternal  youth,  the 
principle  of  continuity,  constant  development  and  growth 
out  of  the  primitive  germs  which  God  himself  placed  in 
Scripture. ' '  After  adducing  many  instances  showing  that 
even  in  times  agone  the  great  lights  of  Jewish  learning  had 
laid  no  claim  to  authority  for  their  decisions  without  giving 
Scriptural  warrant  for  them,  and  that  they  therefore 
never  arrogated  to  themselves  more  than  human  power,  he 
continues:  "If  then  the  rabbis  never  assumed  a  higher 
authority  than  they  had  a  right  to  as  men,  and  took  no 
step  without  giving  the  reasons  which  justified  them  in  tak- 

1  See  the  author 's  Samuel  Holdheim,  Jewish  Reformer,  1806-1861, 
in  Year  Book  of  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  for  1906, 
305-333;  issued  also  as  a  separate  publication. 


92  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ing  this  step,  a  later  generation  can  certainly  not  be  pre- 
vented from  examining  by  earnest  investigation  the  valid- 
ity of  this  justification,  in  order  to  learn  whether  their 
authority,  which  was  rightfully  respected  at  one  time,  has 
not  ceased,  and  whether  a  later  age  has  not  an  equal  right 
to  determine  what  is  absolutely  necessary  for  its  welfare 
and  to  satisfy  its  religious  needs  in  a  suitable  manner.  .  .  . 
The  spirit  remains  the  same  although  the  times  change. 
The  genius  that  moved  and  enlivened  the  old  world  of  the 
rabbis  moves  and  enlivens  us  also.  It  is  the  same  striving 
to  develop  our  ancient  faith  continually  and  to  rescue  it 
from  destruction. "  *  "  Had  the  rabbis  lived  in  our  times, ' ' 
he  says  further  on,  ' '  and  become  imbued  with  their  tenden- 
cies in  an  equal  degree  as  they  did  with  the  tendencies  of 
their  own  age,  they  would  have  explained  the  Bible  in  a 
different  manner.  Their  interpretation,  then,  is  naught 
else  but  a  product  of  the  religious  point  of  view  of  their 
time."2 

B.  Wechsler,  rabbi  in  Oldenburg,  whose  name  figures 
frequently  in  Jewish  publications  of  this  period,  and  who 
played  a  rather  prominent  part  in  the  religious  activities 
connected  with  the  forward  movement,  put  this  pertinent 
query:  "Who  would  deny  to  Judaism  the  capacity  for  de- 
velopment which  is  in  truth  its  by  nature,  because,  for- 
sooth, our  co-religionists  sought  their  salvation  in  the  ages 
of  oppression  and  persecution  by  holding  fast  anxiously  to 
past  tradition,  especially  since  even  in  those  troublous  times 

1  EaVbinische  Gvtachten,  I,  60. 

2  Bdb~binisclie  Gutachten,  I,  71.     Holdheim's  first  publication  deal- 
ing with  the  subject  of  reform  in  Judaism  had  been  called  forth  by 
the  Breslau  affair.     In  the  year  1840  he  had  published  the  pamphlet, 
Der  religiose  Fortschritt  in  deutschen  Judenthume.     Ein  friedliches 
Wort  in  einer  aufgeregten  Zeit,  in  answer  to  the  contention  of  a 
Dr.  Lowisitz,  who  had  argued  that  the  culture  of  an  age  could  not  be 
considered  a  deciding  factor  in  religious  concerns  in  his  pamphlet 
Die  Rabbinerwahl,  zur  AufTcldrung  der  ddbei  vertretenen  religiosen 
Interessen.     Breslau,  1840. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  93 

the  need  of  the  age  sometimes  forced  them  to  take  a  pro- 
gressive step,  as  witness  the  pronouncements  of  Rabbenu 
Gershom *  against  polygamy  and  the  levirate  marriage, 
etc. ' ' 2  On  the  point  at  issue  as  to  the  compatibility  of 
freedom  of  investigation  with  the  exercise  of  the  rabbinical 
office,  he  says  clearly:  " Jewish  theology  not  only  sanctions 
scientific  method  and  free  research,  it  even  insists  on  them ; 
they  are  indispensable.  If  light  is  to  break  in  upon  the 
chaotic  confusion  of  opinions  and  views,  if  proper  limits 
are  to  be  set  to  the  caprice  of  subjective  interpretation  and 
explanation  in  the  religious  province  as  well  as  to  the  use- 
less reference  to  ambiguous  authorities— scientific  method 
alone  will  accomplish  this.  But  all  minor  considerations 
and  circumstances  aside,  that  system  of  theology  is  not 
deserving  the  name  .  .  .  which  answers  the  thinker  with 
edicts  of  excommunication  and  with  persecution  instead  of 
with  reasons ;  in  pursuing  such  a  course  our  religion  would 
depart  from  the  way  of  intelligence  and  enter  the  desert  of 
witless  sanctity  founded  upon  works,  whereas  Moses  and 
the  prophets  insist  continually  on  an  intelligent  grasp  and 
recognition  of  those  things  that  constitute  Judaism. ' ' 3 

Abraham  Kohn,  4  rabbi  of  Hohenems  in  Tirol,  summed 

*A  great  rabbi,  known  as  "The  Light  of  the  Exile, "  who  lived 
from  960-1028;  though  born  in  France  he  settled  in  Mayence,  where 
he  founded  a  school;  he  was  renowned  as  a  Commentator  of  the  Tal- 
mud, but  he  is  best  known  for  certain  decrees  which  he  issued,  among 
others  the  one  forbidding  polygamy;  see  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews 
(Engl.  transl.),  Philadelphia,  1894,  III,  244. 

*£abbinische  Gutachten,  I,  86. 

8  Eabbinische  Gutachten,  I,  92. 

4  This  rabbi  was  the  central  figure  in  one  of  the  most  unfortunate 
incidents  of  those  stirring  times  in  Jewish  life.  He  became  rabbi  of 
the  congregation  of  Lemberg,  Galicia,  in  1844;  his  reform  tendencies 
and  progressive  views  aroused  great  opposition  among  the  orthodox 
party,  and  in  Sept.  1848,  he  met  his  death,  a  victim  of  a  fanatic  who 
had  poisoned  his  food.  See  his  biography  by  his  son,  Jacob  Kohn, 
in  Nachgelassene  Schriften  Abraham  Kohn's  mit  einer  Biographic 
desselben  verfasst  von  seinem  Sohne  JaJcob  Kohn.  Herausgegeben 
von  Joseph  KobaTc.  Lemberg,  1856. 


94       THE  KEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

up  his  thoughts  in  a  number  of  paragraphs,  in  the  first  of 
which  he  contended  that  the  institutions  of  the  Jewish  faith 
are  not  unchangeable,  and  illustrated  this  statement  by 
pointing  out  the  various  stages  that  the  public  worship  had 
passed  through.  He  then  continued:  "The  statutes  of 
rabbinical  Judaism,  despite  their  manifoldness  and  their 
particularity,  were  never  applied  so  strictly  as  to  overlook 
the  demands  of  life  (in  its  broader  scope)  ;  in  truth  one 
of  its  main  principles  is  'that  man  may  live  through  them 
(Lev.  xviii.  5)  and  not  die  through  them.'  From  this  we 
learn,  says  Maimonides  (Hil.  Sab.,  II,  3),  that  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Torah  were  intended  to  bring  into  the 
world  not  revenge  (inconsiderate  severity),  but  mercy,  con- 
sideration, and  peace ;  and  Scripture  says  of  such  heretics 
as  declare  an  act  done  to  save  a  human  life  to  be  a  desecra- 
tion of  the  Sabbath :  *  I  gave  them  also  statutes  which  were 
not  good  and  judgments  whereby  they  should  not  live' 
(Ezek.  xx.  25).  Now,  the  Jews  of  our  century  in  Europe 
find  themselves  living  under  entirely  new  conditions,  such 
as  could  not  be  imagined  in  a  former  day,  and  for  which  no 
provision  could  be  made ;  analogies  must  be  sought,  and,  in 
accordance  with  them,  such  alleviations  as  were  granted  in 
exceptional  cases  must  be  permitted,  not  in  order  that  we 
may  make  our  life  more  convenient,  but  in  order  that  we 
may  fulfill  our  duties  to  ourselves  and  our  new  surround- 
ings the  better  without  breaking  with  our  religion. ' ' * 

He  diagnosed  the  religious  situation  thus:  " There  is  a 
fatal  split  among  Jews,  first,  because  religious  tenets  and 
institutions  have  been  kept  forcibly  on  the  level  of  a 
vanished  era,  and  not  permeated  with  the  divine  breath  of 
refreshing  life,  while  life  itself  hurried  forward  stormily; 
and,  secondly,  because  the  religious  leaders,  lacking  all 
knowledge  of  the  world  and  of  men,  dreamed  of  other  times 
and  conditions,  and  held  themselves  aloof  from  the  life  of 
the  new  generation— hence  resulted  a  superficial  rational- 

1  Kabbinische  GutacMen,  I,  114. 


THE  GEIGEE-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  95 

ism,  inimical  to  all  positive  and  historical  faith,  side  by 
side  with  a  rigid,  unreasoning  formalism.  On  the  other 
hand,  only  good  can  follow  from  the  recent  endeavors  to 
rejuvenate  the  religious  forms  and  to  re-establish  the 
requisite  harmony  between  life  and  the  faith ;  the  formation 
of  a  new  sect *  is  to  be  feared  all  the  less  since  appreciable 
differences  in  the  ritual  as  well  as  in  religious  customs  have 
always  existed  side  by  side  in  rabbinical  Judaism. ' ' 2 

Solomon  Herxheimer,  rabbi  in  Bernburg  for  over  fifty 
years, 3  and  known  particularly  for  his  translation  of  the 
Bible  into  German  and  for  his  splendid  work  in  the  cause 
of  the  religious  education  of  the  young,  declared  without 
circumlocution  that  "the  same  need  and  the  same  justifica- 
tion which  led  the  teachers  of  the  synagogue  of  former 
days  to  make  changes  exist  in  a  greater  degree  than  ever 
to-day;  if  our  modern  rabbis  do  not,  like  those  of  former 
times,  make  the  changes  required  by  European  conditions, 
our  co-religionists  will  take  the  initiative  themselves  and, 
even  as  daily  experience  shows,  will  renounce  one  rabbinical 
and  Mosaic  command  after  the  other,  and  pass  gradually 
into  indifference  and  unbelief;"4  and  he  locks  horns  with 
the  rabbinate  of  Lissa  in  no  unmistakable  manner,  by  stat- 
ing "that  they  prove  their  assertions  by  no  manner  of 
means. ' '  On  the  other  hand,  in  rebuttal  of  their  position, 
we  refer  to  the  dictum  of  Maimonides  (Hil.  Mamrin,  II), 

1  One  of  the  standing  charges  of  the  opponents  of  reform  was  that 
the  reformers  were  forming  a  new  sect  in  Judaism,  whereas  the 
reformers  claimed  that  they  were  simply  applying  the  principle  of 
tradition  to  the  unusual  circumstances  in  which  the  Jews  were  living 
in  the  new  age.  The  difference  between  the  rabbinical  and  the  re- 
form party  in  this  matter  may  be  put  briefly  thus,  that  the  reformers 
made  a  distinction  between  tradition  and  the  traditions,  or  between 
tradition  and  traditionalism,  which  the  rabbinical  party  did  not. 
Supra,  7. 

a  Babbinische  Gutachten,  I,  115. 

8  The  congregation  celebrated  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  his  service 
as  rabbi  September  26,  1877.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XLI  (1877),  697. 

*Rabbinische  Gutachten,  I,  121. 


96  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

that  every  Beth  Din  must  abrogate  even  Mosaic  commands 
if  this  be  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  religion  in 
the  light  of  the  needs  of  the  time,  tt  B»  min  nm  tf'BK 
ny&>  n*nin  npjtf  in  rpa.  Even  the  ultra-conservative 
Isserles  says  in  his  response  (K"D  «"»1  nniBTi),  "But  if 
anything  arise  that  the  former  teachers  knew  not  or  were 
not  called  upon  to  decide,  then  surely  a  change  is  as  neces- 
sary as  any  alteration  mentioned  in  the  Talmud;  for  the 
reason  that  the  former  authorities  had  not  the  present  con- 
dition in  mind  when  they  introduced  the  custom. "  Many 
examples  may  be  cited  to  prove  that  Biblical  or  Talmudical 
statutes  have  been  modified  or  abrogated  at  various  times, 
e.  g.,  the  abrogation  of  the  levirate  marriage,  the  modifica- 
tion of  the  Mosaic  law  commanding  the  cancellation  of 
debts  in  the  Sabbatical  year  (^unifi),  x  the  permission  to 
use  oil  purchased  from  a  heathen,  etc. 2 

David  Einhorn,  one  of  the  finest  thinkers  among  the 
Jewish  leaders,  was  just  beginning  a  career  that  was 
characterized  by  fervid  enthusiasm  in  the  cause  of  reform. 
Both  in  Germany  and  America  he  did  yeoman's  work  for 
the  furtherance  of  the  movement  he  had  so  much  at  heart. 
A  clear  writer  and  a  great  preacher  he  stands  easily  among 
the  foremost.  The  correct  attitude  towards  the  Talmud 
has  probably  never  been  stated  better  than  in  the  few 
words  which  he  wrote  in  his  response :  ' '  Such  an  inf allibil- 

*A  reform  instituted  by  Hillel.  It  was  found  that  the  Mosaic 
command  that  all  debts  were  to  be  cancelled  in  the  Sabbatical  year 
interfered  seriously  with  commercial  activity;  people  were  loth  to 
lend  money ;  therefore  Hillel  ordained  that  the  creditor  should  make  a 
deposition  before  a  court  which  would  empower  him  to  collect  his 
debt;  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  Sabbatical  year  was  not  to  cancel 
the  debt.  This  institution  was  known  as  Prozbul  (Mish.,  Shebiith, 
X,  3,  4). 

2  A  reform  of  the  patriarch  Judah  II ;  it  is  in  connection  with  this 
permission  that  the  famous  expression  is  used  that  no  law  ought  to 
continue  in  force  that  the  people  could  not  carry  out  (Talm.  Bab. 
Ab.  Zara,  36  a). 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  97 

ity,  such  an  apotheosis  (as  Tiktin  and  his  supporters  claim) 
we  cannot  and  we  may  not  grant  to  the  Talmud;  however 
strong  our  belief  in  its  veracity  may  be,  we  must  refuse 
and  reject  such  deification ;  we  address  the  Talmud  in  these 
words,  'Israel  believes  thee,  but  not  in  thee;  thou  art  a 
medium  through  which  the  divine  may  be  reached,  but  thou 
art  not  divine;"1  and  in  reference  to  the  abolition  of  the 
ceremonies,  which  was  after  all  the  great  issue  between  the 
two  parties  in  Judaism,  he  says:  "The  departure  from 
ceremonial  laws,  which  is  the  result  neither  of  caprice  nor 
frivolity  but  the  outcome  of  the  honest  conviction  that  such 
departure  is  in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism  and  is 
a  pressing  demand  of  its  natural  development,  does  not 
unfit  a  man  for  holding  the  rabbinical  office.  Naturally 
such  departure  may  not  be  merely  a  matter  of  fashion  or 
convenience,  and  may  have  nothing  in  common  with  the 
forcible  introduction  of  un- Jewish  points  of  view  into  the 
province  of  Judaism,  nor  with  mere  subjectivity,  nor,  in 
short,  with  a  sort  of  antipathy  to  inherited  conditions;  it 
must  be,  however,  the  product  of  a  deep,  honest,  unpre- 
judiced investigation  into  the  sacred  sources,  of  a  pious 
earnestness,  a  glowing  enthusiasm,  and  finally  of  a  ripe 
conclusion  arrived  at  after  weighing  all  causes  and  effects 
in  company  with  other  competent  men,  zealous  for  God 
and  religion.  Then  will  such  a  departure  be  not  a  con- 
demnable  but  a  highly  commendable  act,  the  like  of  which 
took  place  frequently  in  Talmudical  and  post-Talmudical 
times"  (see  Talm.  Bab.  Jeb.  39b,  90b;  Sotah,  48  a,  etc.).2 
Moses  Gutmann,  rabbi  in  Redwitz,  analysed  the  situation 
very  clearly  when  he  wrote,  ' '  If  ever  the  Talmudical  appli- 
cation of  the  Biblical  sentence  irnin  visn  "5  rwy5  ny  (Ps. 
cxix.  126)  'it  is  time  to  work  for  the  Lord,  they  disregard 
thy  law,'  seemed  necessary,  this  is  the  case  in  our  days. 
One  must  either  close  one's  eyes  intentionally  in  order  not 

1  BdbUnische  Gutachten,  I,  127. 
'Ibid.,  I,  131. 


98       THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

to  see,  or  must  transport  himself  into  the  dark  days  of  the 
past  when  stupor  and  death  lamed  every  aspiration  among 
the  Jews,  and  thus  be  out  of  all  touch  with  the  life  and 
activity  of  the  present,  if  one  fails  to  recognize  the  great 
changes  which  have  been  taking  place  for  more  than  a 
generation  in  the  religious  convictions  of  our  co-religion- 
ists, and  which  are  growing  day  by  day.  .  .  .  The  number 
of  those  who  cannot  acknowledge  as  divine  commands  the 
innumerable  laws  which  have  been  deduced  by  the  rabbis 
of  later  centuries  is  increasing  constantly.  In  addition, 
life  and  the  state  make  far  different  demands  upon  the 
Jew  to-day  than  was  the  case  formerly.  .  .  .  Sufficient  to 
say,  a  conflict  exists  between  the  traditional  interpretation 
of  the  faith,  and  the  life  and  convictions  of  a  great  number 
of  Jews,  and  a  remedy  is  immediately  and  absolutely  nec- 
essary, if  the  breach  is  not  to  grow  and  in  the  end  become 
incurable. ' ' * 

Joseph  Aub,  rabbi  in  Baireuth  at  this  time  but  later  in 
Berlin,  called  attention  to  the  inevitable  result  of  the  prac- 
tical acceptance  of  the  thesis  of  the  opponents  of  Geiger: 
' '  The  consecrated  and  the  consecrating  spirit,  not  the  dead 
and  killing  letter,  is  to  be  preserved.  Karaism  holds  fast 
to  the  letter  of  the  Tor  ah.  Will  it  prove  less  injurious 
to  hold  fast  to  the  letter  of  the  Talmud  than  to  that  of 
Sacred  Writ?  Hence  one  is  almost  tempted  to  cast  the 
reproach  of  Karaism  upon  those  who  charge  with  it  such 
of  their  colleagues  as  do  not  shun  scientific  investigation. 
Let  them  do  away  with  the  weapons  of  damning  and 
heresy-hunting  which  are  foreign  to  Judaism,  and  pursue 
the  method  of  peaceful  refutation  and  explanation.  No 
sensible  persons  can  be  frightened,  nor  any  intelligent  court 
be  deceived  by  the  cries  of  deism  or  atheism  which  the 
obscurantists  raise  at  every  deliverance  of  science.  It  is 
possible  to  stand  firmly  on  the  basis  of  positive  Judaism 

1  EdbUnische  Gutachten,  I,  184. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  99 

without  swearing  unswerving  allegiance  to  Talmudism. ' ' * 
In  the  same  vein  Joseph  Maier,  ecclesiastical  counsellor 
(Kirchenrath)  and  rabbi  in  Stuttgart,  expressed  himself. 
"As  far  as  I  am  concerned  personally,  I  state  openly  and 
above  board  that  I  consider  the  subordination  of  the  reason 
to  the  authority  of  any  person  to  be  idolatry  as  pronounced 
as  that  of  blind  heathenism.  For  where  lies  the  difference 
if  I  bow  the  knee  before  a  lifeless  image  of  wood  or  stone 
or  worship  as  divine  the  dead  letter  of  a  Rabbi  Aqiba,  a 
Rabbi  Tarfon,  etc.?  Yet  up  to  the  time  of  the  rabbinate 
of  Lissa  no  teacher  in  Israel  demanded  such  blind  subjec- 
tion to  the  pronouncements  of  the  Talmudists;  in  truth, 
the  foremost  teachers  of  the  synagogue  recognize  the  right 
of  the  reason  to  investigate  the  whole  content  of  religion; 
yea,  they  deem  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Israelites  to  make 
the  teachings  and  truths  of  religion  a  matter  of  conviction 
by  means  of  thought  and  research  (see  Bachya,  Introduc- 
tion to  Chobot  hal-l'babot,  Saadia  in  his  Emunot  we- 
deot,  Elia  del  Medigo  in  his  Bechinat  ha-Dat,  etc.)"2 
As  the  closing  extract  from  this  important  collection  the 
words  of  Leopold  Stein,  rabbi  in  Burgkunstadt,  Bavaria, 
later  in  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  who  became  one  of  the 
striking  personalities  in  Jewish  life  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, may  be  quoted.  "We  feel,"  he  wrote,  "that  Israel 
also  is  likely  to  suffer  from  the  throes  of  the  present  age, 
and  from  the  pangs  of  mankind  struggling  for  better 
things;  and  just  as  little  as  we  doubt  the  success  of  the 
latter,  even  so  do  we  trust  with  unshakable  confidence  in 
God  that  lasting  peace  will  ensue  from  the  contests  now 
being  waged  in  Israel,  and  that  our  holy  faith  will  issue 
from  the  struggle  purified  and  clarified.  Our  hope  lies  in 
the  future,  our  zealous  striving  in  the  present.  This  zeal, 
however,  must  go  hand  in  hand  with  rational  insight  and 
calm  weighing  of  conditions.  The  friends  of  progress,  in 

*  Edbbinische  GutacJiten,  II,  10. 
'Ibid.,  64. 


100  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

whose  ranks  I  gladly  enroll  myself,  may  not  forget,  in  their 
eagerness  to  reach  the  goal,  to  tread  the  path  of  modera- 
tion, which  alone  can  lead  to  success.  They  must  consider 
constantly  whether  they  do  not  harm  their  cause  more  than 
they  benefit  it  by  their  words  and  deeds,  and  they  may 
never  leave  out  of  account  the  great  number  of  their  co- 
religionists who  think  differently,  and  to  instruct  whom 
must  be  one  of  their  prime  objects.  The  conservatives,  on 
the  other  hand,  against  whom  are  arrayed  all  the  signs  of 
an  agitated,  progressive  age,  must  beware  especially  of 
blind  fanaticism  and  harsh  condemnation  of  such  of  their 
co-religionists  as  think  differently  from  them,  lest  they 
alienate  these  still  more,  and  our  religious  community, 
which  in  fundamentals  is  one  as  yet,  be  divided  into  irrec- 
oncilable factions  by  mischievous  and  irremediable  meth- 
ods/'1 

The  decisive  answer  of  so  many  respected  Jewish  leaders, 
to  the  effect  that  freedom  of  thought  and  investigation  was 
compatible  with  the  occupancy  of  the  rabbinical  office,  and 
that  Judaism  had  never  sanctioned  the  fettering  of  the 
intellect,  as  Tiktin  and  his  sympathizers  demanded,  was 
indeed  a  conspicuous  signpost  in  the  march  of  religious 
progress.  The  governing  board  of  the  Breslau  congrega- 
tion felt  itself  justified  in  the  steps  it  had  taken.  In 
August,  1842,  the  members  of  the  congregation  presented 
an  address  to  Geiger,  in  which  they  denounced  the  tactics 
of  his  opponents,  and  expressed  their  appreciation  of  his 
work  as  a  teacher  of  real  Judaism  (echtes  Judenthum).2 
He  was  confirmed  in  his  position  from  many  sides.  Still 
the  bitterness  of  the  opposition  was  not  assuaged.  The 
death  of  Tiktin,  in  March;  1843,  might  have  put  an  end  to 
the  unfortunate  state  of  affairs,  had  not  a  Governmental 
decision,  delivered  a  short  time  before,  declared  his  sus- 
pension by  the  officers  of  the  congregation  invalid.  This 

1  Eabbinische  Gutachten,  II,  83. 

2  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  162. 


THE  GEIGER-TIKTIN  AFFAIR  101 

inspired  his  party  with  new  hope,  inasmuch  as  they 
counted  now  on  the  support  of  the  Government.  The 
certainty  that  Geiger  would  be  elected  chief  rabbi,  the 
position  that  Tiktin  had  filled,  caused  the  opposition  to  take 
the  decided  step  of  withdrawing  from  the  congregation 
and  resolving  to  form  a  new  congregation.  The  Govern- 
ment was  appealed  to  by  the  officers  of  the  congregation, 
and,  although  unwilling  at  first  to  meddle  any  further  in 
the  affairs  of  the  Jewish  community,  still  it  was  forced  to 
take  a  hand,  as  the'  only  effective  way  of  settling  the  dis- 
pute, which  waxed  more  unpleasant  from  day  to  day.  On 
October  26,  1844,  the  Government  issued  a  rescript,  in 
which  it  declared  that  Geiger  was  the  chief  rabbi,  that  a 
second  rabbi  was  to  be  elected,  and  that  there  should  be  no 
split  in  the  congregation;  the  rescript  continued,  "We 
serve  notice  that  the  Government  cannot  interfere  in  the 
controversies  of  the  Jews  concerning  their  ritual ;  it  is  in- 
cumbent upon  them  to  come  to  some  agreement  as  to  what 
they  consider  necessary  and  proper  for  the  furtherance  of 
the  spirit  of  their  religious  affairs. ' ' *  The  opposition 
protested,  it  is  true;  they  had  elected  Tiktin 's  son  as  rabbi 
in  his  place,  but  they  had  to  submit  at  last  to  the  Govern- 
ment's decision.  Twenty-one  years  previously  the  Prus- 
sian Government  had  stopped  all  changes  in  the  ritual,  by 
declaring  that  no  innovation  of  any  kind  was  permitted; 
now,  by  stating  that  the  Jewish  congregations  themselves 
had  to  regulate  their  own  internal  affairs,  it  implied  the 
right  of  the  congregations  to  govern  themselves  as  they 
would,  and  hence  to  make  whatever  internal  changes  they 
considered  necessary.  The  outcome  of  the  Geiger-Tiktin 
controversy  was  a  decided  gain  for  the  cause  of  progress; 
it  resulted  in  the  open  discomfiture  of  the  party  of  obscu- 
rantism, and  in  a  triumphant  vindication  of  the  essentially 
Jewish  doctrine  of  liberty  of  thought  and  research. 

1  Bitter,  Die  jiidische  Beformgemeinde  in  Berlin,  49.     Berlin,  1902. 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  HAMBUEG  TEMPLE  PEAYEE-BOOK  CONTEOVEESY 

WHILE  the  Geiger-Tiktin  affair  was  at  its  height  another 
struggle  between  the  two  wings  of  Jewish  thought  was 
waged  in  a  locality  that  had  been  a  field  of  battle  in  this 
conflict  some  years  previously.  In  the  year  1841  the  Ham- 
burg Temple  became  a  storm-centre  once  again.  In  the 
twenty-three  years  that  had  elapsed  since  its  organization 
this  congregation  had  maintained  itself  as  a  distinct  asso- 
ciation. After  the  exciting  incidents  attending  its  forma- 
tion 1  the  congregation  had  been  left  in  comparative  peace 
and  had  been  less  in  the  public  gaze.  In  November,  1841, 
however,  a  keen  and  competent  observer,  Dr.  Samuel  Hold- 
heim,  who  had  attended  the  services  at  the  Temple,  pub- 
lished an  account  of  his  impressions.  2  He  declared  un- 
reservedly that  "the  temple  is  undeniably  the  most  impor- 
tant incident  in  the  history  of  culture  in  Judaism,"  and 
stated  that  it  stood  for  the  purely  religious  idea  as  opposed 
to  the  nationalistic  and  that  its  great  service  consisted  in 
giving  practical  demonstration  of  the  fact  that  Judaism  is 
capable  of  progress  and  development.  A  number  of  events 
conspired  together  just  about  this  time  to  direct  pronounced 
attention,  once  again,  to  this  pioneer  reform  congregation. 
It  had  grown  greatly  in  membership  so  that  it  was  found 
necessary  to  enlarge  its  place  of  worship.  The  two  dec- 
ades which  had  passed  from  the  time  it  had  been  called 
into  being  had  witnessed  a  development  of  thought  among 
the  reformers,  and  therefore  it  was  found  expedient  to 

1  Supra. 

-  Israelitische  Annalen,  III,  353,  362. 

102 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  103 

revise  the  prayer-book  used  by  the  congregation  and  to 
issue  it  in  a  new  edition.  As  in  1818  the  prayer-book  of 
the  congregation  had  aroused  the  opposition  of  the  rabbis 
of  the  old  school  and  had  caused  the  first  decided  clash  be- 
tween the  rabbinical  and  the  reform  parties,  so  in  1841  it 
was  again  the  prayer-book  in  its  revised  form  which  be- 
came the  bone  of  contention.  Before  entering  into  a  de- 
tailed account  of  this,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  indicate 
briefly  the  changes  wrought  in  various  localities  during 
the  years  bounded  by  the  two  occurrences  wherein  this 
congregation  occupied  the  centre  of  the  stage  of  Jewish 
attention.  In  1818  when  the  Hamburg  congregation  was 
formed,  not  one  established  congregation  in  Europe  had 
been  touched  by  the  modern  spirit ;  in  1841  when  the  new 
edition  of  its  prayer-book  appeared,  this  modern  spirit  had 
made  its  influence  felt  in  many  quarters  with  more  or  less 
pronounced  results.  There  can,  in  truth,  be  no  doubt  that 
the  spirit  of  progress  which  was  embodied  in  the  Ham- 
burg congregation  was  at  work  in  many  places,  and  although 
no  other  congregation  had  labeled  itself  "reformed,"  still 
was  the  influence  of  the  new  learning  and  culture  thrown 
into  the  scale  for  religious  reforms  of  some  sort.  The 
program  adopted  by  the  Vienna  congregation  in  1826  be- 
came the  model  for  many  other  congregations;  this  pro- 
gram included  German  sermons,  music  by  selected  choir, 
decorum  in  the  service;  the  Viennese  congregation  owed 
its  great  influence  to  the  two  men  who  stood  at  its  head, 
Isaac  Noa  Mannheimer,  the  illustrious  preacher,  and 
Solomon  Sulzer,  the  celebrated  cantor.  Although  not  a 
reform  congregation  in  any  sense  when  judged  by  changes 
in  doctrine  or  in  the  content  of  the  prayers,  yet  its 
program  seemed  to  satisfy  the  religious  needs  of  such  as 
desired  to  see  the  body  of  tradition  clothed  in  a  garb  ac- 
ceptable to  the  modern  age.1  This  Vienna  program 

*Cf.  Geiger's  estimate  of  Mannheimer 's  work  in  his  obituary  arti- 
cle, J.  Z.  W.  L.,  Ill,  170. 


104      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

was  adopted  by  congregations  in  Bohemia, 1  Hungary, 2 
Wurtemberg, 3  the  Palatinate ; 4  also  by  the  congregations 
of  Amsterdam, 5  Copenhagen,  6  Munich, 7  Mayence, 8  Bern- 
burg,  9  Karlsruhe, 10  Bingen,  n  and  other  places. 

Governmental  edicts  touching  this  matter  of  Jewish 
customs  and  services  also  indicate  the  tendencies  of  the 
period;  in  1835  Alexius  Frederick  Christian,  the  Duke  of 
Anhalt,  issued  a  set  of  instructions  to  the  chief  rabbi  of 
the  duchy,  in  which  this  official  was  bidden  take  steps  to 
"  remove  all  abuses  which  had  crept  into  the  synagogue 
and  all  non-essentials  which,  on  the  one  hand,  obscure  the 
true  Mosaic  religion  and  morality,  and,  on  the  other,  lead 
to  contentions  in  the  house  of  worship  and  in  the  congre- 
gation." 12  The  thirty-second  article  of  the  decree  of  1837, 
regulating  the  affairs  of  the  Jews  of  the  kingdom  of  Han- 
over, ordered  that  "a  sermon  in  German  be  delivered  on 
every  Sabbath  and  holiday  by  the  rabbi  or  such  other  func- 
tionary as  may  be  at  the  head  of  synagogal  affairs."  13  In 
Baden  a  decree  of  1838  demanded  the  introduction  of 
chorals  into  the  service  of  the  synagogues ; 14  this  had  been 
commanded  as  early  as  1824  15  but  had  not  been  respected ; 
the  reiterated  decree  was  obeyed.  The  shifting  attitude 
of  the  Bavarian  government  in  this  matter  of  Jewish  re- 
forms is  interesting ;  in  1834  some  Jews  of  Baireuth  lodged 
complaint  with  the  government  against  the  rabbis  who  had 
eliminated  from  the  liturgy  certain  prayers,  which  accord- 
ing to  their  opinion  expressed  no  longer  the  true  aspirations 
of  the  modern  worshiper.  The  government  sided  with  the 
rabbis,  but  decreed  at  the  same  time  that  such  individuals 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  I,  44,  III,  637;  Isr.  Ann.,  Ill,  14,  53. 

a  Ibid.,  I,  190;  Low,  Gesammelte  Schriften,  II,  291. 

8  Isr.  Ann.,  I,  213.  *  IMd.,  228.  *  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  Ill,  394. 

9 Isr.  Ann.,  I,  95.  'Ibid.,  51.  8 Hid.,  14. 

•  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  475. 

10  Isr.  Ann.,  I,  413,  II,  127;  Low,  Ges.  Schr.,  II,  295. 

11  Isr.  Ann.,  I,  142.  »  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  465. 

18 A.  Z.  d.  J.,  I,  63.  "/bid.,  Ill,  26.  »Isr.  Ann.,  II,  38. 


PEAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  105 

as  desired  to  pray  these  prayers  at  home  privately  could  do 
so ;  *  in  1835,  in  the  month  of  November,  the  government 
issued  a  decree  calling  for  assemblies  of  Jewish  representa- 
tives in  all  the  districts  of  the  country  to  discuss  and  to 
determine  upon  all  points  of  belief  and  practice  concern- 
ing which  there  were  decided  differences  of  opinion  among 
Jews.  In  accordance  with  this  decree  a  number  of  these 
district  synods  were  held,  one  of  which  declared  that  the 
belief  in  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  is  to  be  taken  in  the 
spiritual  not  the  political  sense,  that  the  Jews  do  not  expect 
a  return  to  Palestine  nor  the  re-establishment  of  the  Jewish 
state;  the  synod,  therefore,  resolved  to  remove  from  the 
prayer-book  all  passages  petitioning  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah  and  the  return  to  Palestine ; 2  this  decree  of  1835 
seemed  to  be  animated  by  the  liberal  spirit,  as  was  also  the 
governmental  edict  of  1838  issued  to  the  congregations  of 
Middle  Pranconia ; 3  however  an  edict  of  October  23,  1838 
(repeated  December  31,  1839),  indicates  that  the  orthodox 
party  had  gained  the  ear  of  the  government,  for  this  edict 
declares  that  the  king  desires  the  appointment  of  rabbis 
who  are  thoroughly  cultured  but  who  are  at  the  same  time 
strict  adherents  "of  all  genuine  Mosaic  doctrines  and  cere- 
monies, and  who  discountenance  all  destructive  neology. ' '  * 
This  same  reactionary  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment appears  in  a  decree  of  July  22,  1840,  which  forbade 
the  continued  observance  of  the  ceremony  of  confirmation 
which  had  been  introduced  by  Dr.  Lowi,  the  rabbi  of 
Fuerth. 5 

A  decree  promulgated  in  the  Duchy  of  Saxe-Meiningen, 
in  December,  1839,  comprising  instructions  to  the  district 
rabbis  is  interesting;  it  commands  these  rabbis  to  conduct 

1  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  125. 

2  Theologische  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des    neuen    israelitischen    Tempelvereins    zu    Hamburg     (Hamburg, 
1842),  71. 

9  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  Ill,  34.      *Ibid.,  IV,  64.      « Isr.  Ann.,  II,  284,  290. 


106  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  services  in  accordance  with  the  essentials  of  the  Mosaic 
religion  and  the  needs  of  the  time,  to  remove  from  the  pub- 
lic services  and  the  religious  instruction  everything  which 
is  unessential  and  objectionable.  The  fifth  paragraph 
orders  that  a  German  sermon  be  delivered  every  two  weeks, 
and  the  eighth  paragraph  instructs  the  rabbi  to  promote 
the  improvement  of  the  services  in  all  the  congregations  of 
his  district,  to  remove  abuses,  to  have  more  and  more  of  the 
prayers  read  in  German,  to  establish  choirs,  to  have  the 
prayers  and  the  Pentateuchal  readings  pronounced  in  a 
dignified  manner  in  place  of  the  traditional  sing-song,  and 
to  abolish  the  selling  of  the  mitzivot.  The  decree  also 
commanded  the  conducting  of  the  confirmation  ceremony 
yearly.1  On  the  other  hand  Prussia  had  re-enforced  the 
decree  of  1823,  forbidding  any  changes  or  innovations  in 
the  Jewish  service,  by  two  subsequent  decrees  of  May  25, 
1829,  and  October  25,  1836. 

Thus  the  currents  moved  to  and  fro.  The  Jewish  com- 
munities were  being  constantly  stirred  by  the  agitations. 
A  striking  instance  of  how  widespread  the  movements 
against  the  old  order  were  is  offered  by  a  remarkable  ad- 
dress issued  by  fifty-four  Jews  of  Wilna  in  September, 
1840,  to  their  co-religionists  in  Russian  Poland;  this  docu- 
ment urged  improvements  in  the  religious  condition  of  the 
Jews  and  declared  that  the  evils  were  superinduced  by 
three  causes;  first,  the  incompetency  of  the  rabbis  and 
teachers  who  were  for  the  most  part  ignorant,  "  understood 
no  intelligible  language,  possessed  no  scientific  training, 
were  absolutely  inexperienced  in  worldly  matters  .... 
made  no  efforts  to  improve  manners  and  morals,  to  spread 
true  enlightenment,  to  incline  their  people  to  participate 
in  the  general  welfare  of  the  community  or  to  impress 
upon  them  the  necessity  for  the  pursuit  of  industrial  and 
agricultural  pursuits ; ' '  secondly,  the  neglect  of  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  young,  and  thirdly,  the  superstitions  and  the 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IV,  21;  Isr.,  Ann.,  II,  11. 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  107 

divisions  caused  by  the  Sabbatian  and  Chassidaic  move- 
ments. These  evils,  they  declared,  could  be  remedied  only 
by  the  foundation  of  a  rabbinical  seminary  where  rabbis 
would  receive  a  scientific  Jewish  education  combined  with 
secular  learning;1  in  the  meantime  "let  German  rabbis 
who  are  versed  in  the  Talmud  and  in  branches  of  secular 
knowledge  be  elected  as  district  rabbis  and  teach  the  re- 
ligion in  its  purity  ....  ;  let  these  rabbis  form  a  con- 
sistory with  its  seat  in  the  place  where  the  seminary  is 
located,  this  consistory  to  conduct,  all  religious  and  con- 
gregational affairs,  regulate  the  public  worship,"  2  etc. 
Although  religious  reform  as  such  is  not  mentioned  in  this 
address  yet  it  testifies  to  the  longing  for  changes  and  im- 
provements even  in  such  communities  as  have  been  sup- 
posed by  many  not  to  have  been  affected  in  any  way  by  the 
modern  spirit. 

Two  remarkable  contemporaneous  individual  utterances 
are  indicative  of  the  character  of  the  period  under  consid- 
eration. In  a  lettre  pastorale,  addressed  in  1835  to  the 
rabbis  and  the  faithful  in  his  district,  Arnaud  Aron,  the 
newly  elected  grand  rabbin  of  the  Strasburg  consistory, 
used  the  following  language  after  speaking  of  such  as  con- 
temn and  disregard  their  ancestral  faith;  "Avoid  the 

1In  fact,  two  such  seminaries  were  founded  in  Wilna  and 
Zhitomir  in  1848  and  were  controlled  practically  by  the  masTcilim, 
the  Russian  counterparts  to  the  German  meass'fim  (Supra,  10)  of  the 
eighteenth  century.  The  rabbis  who  graduated  from  these  seminaries 
were  to  influence  the  Russian  Jews  to  accept  modern  ideas  and  to 
become  more  and  more  Russianized.  The  Jewish  masses  in  Russia 
being  ultra-orthodox,  did  not  look  favorably  upon  these  seminaries 
nor  upon  their  graduates,  who,  although,  equipped  with  a  good 
secular  education,  were  rarely  Talmudical  adepts  of  the  first  rank. 
These  seminaries  existed  about  twenty-five  years;  they  did  not 
accomplish  what  was  hoped  by  their  founders.  They  did  not  dis- 
place the  yeshibot.  The  conservatism  of  the  Russian  Jew  was  too 
strong.  Of.  The  Jew  in  Russia  in  the  volume,  The  Immigrant  Jew 
in  America,  22.  New  York,  1906. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  /.,  V,  20.  »  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  I,  271. 


108  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

course  of  those  other  Israelites  whose  blind  faith  poisons 
the  present  generation  with  another  serious  evil  no  less 
disastrous  in  its  results.  Refusing  for  themselves  all  higher 
culture,  at  whose  door  they  lay  all  blame  for  the  ills  of  un- 
belief, they  remain  sunk  in  the  lethargy  of  moral  disinte- 
gration. Deaf  to  the  cry  of  the  progressive  enlightenment 
of  humanity  they  never  cease  to  bow  their  head  beneath  the 
yoke  of  abasement,  clinging  obstinately,  at  the  same  time, 
to  the  prejudices  which,  in  their  eyes,  are  the  only  stay  of 
the  religion  of  their  fathers ; "  *  and  the  author  of  the 
famous  Tsarphati  letters1  wrote  in  1836:  "let  us  observe 
the  Sabbath,  the  feast  of  the  creation,  but  let  us  change  the 
day;  let  us  keep  the  divine  covenant,  let  us  change  the 
manner;  let  us  emancipate  woman,  she  is  part  of  human 
kind.  Let  us  preserve  our  collections  of  prayers,  the  mag- 
nificent songs  of  the  Psalmist,  but  let  us  change  the  idiom ; 
let  us  introduce  successively  Protestant  preaching,  the 
Catholic  organ,  the  harmonies  of  the  Meyerbeers,  the 
Halevis."2 

After  this  somewhat  hurried  survey  of  the  changes 
effected  in  Jewish  religious  practice  and  thought  during 
the  interim  of  twenty-three  years  between  the  publication 
of  the  first  and  second  edition  of  the  Hamburg  prayer- 
book,  we  return  to  the  interrupted  narrative.  The  passing 
of  the  years  had  made  it  evident  that  the  first  edition  of  the 
book  could  not  be  considered  final;  when  this  first  edition 

*A  series  of  letters,  "d'un  Israelite  Franc.ais  a  ses  coreligion- 
naires, "  and  signed  Tsarphati;  they  appeared  at  irregular  intervals, 
beginning  in  1822,  and  continued  for  twenty  years;  they  were  con- 
cerned for  the  most  part  with  urging  reforms  of  various  kinds, 
liturgic,  ritualistic,  and  administrative,  among  the  Jews  of  France. 

2  Conservons  le  Sabbat,  fete  de  la  creation,  changeons  le  jour ;  con- 
servons  Palliance  celeste,  changeons  le  mode;  emancipons  la  femme, 
elle  fait  part  du  genre  humain.  Conservons  nos  assemblies  de 
prieres,  les  magnifiques  cantiques  du  Psalmiste,  changeons  1'idiome; 
introduisons  successivement  la  predication  Protestante,  Porgue  catho- 
lique,  les  accords  des  Meyerbeer,  des  Halevi. — W.  Z.  J.  T.,  IV,  259. 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  109 

was  well-nigh  exhausted,  the  directory  of  the  Temple  ap- 
pointed a  commission,  in  April,  1839,  consisting  of  the  two 
rabbis,  Drs.  Gotthold  Salomon  and  Eduard  Kley,  and  three 
members  of  the  congregation,  Dr.  M.  Frankel,  M.  J.  Bres- 
selau  and  M.  Wolf  son,  to  revise  the  prayer-book  in  view  of 
the  new  edition  which  was  to  be  issued,  it  being  provided 
that  ''the  principle  of  revision  shall  conform  to  that  spirit 
of  contemporary  progress  which  has  ruled  in  our  house  of 
worship  up  to  this  time."  The  resignation  of  Dr.  Kley 
as  rabbi  of  the  temple  caused  his  withdrawal  from  the  com- 
mission and  the  appointment  of  his  successor,  Dr.  Naphtali 
Frankfurter,  in  his  stead  and  the  vacancy  caused  by  the 
death  of  M.  J.  Bresselau,  the  secretary  of  the  congregation, 
was  filled  by  his  successor,  M.  M.  Haarbleicher.  The  com- 
mission was  instructed  to  revise  the  prayer-book  but  not  to 
prepare  an  entirely  new  ritual.  The  commission  was  guided 
by  the  following  four  principles:— 

1.  The  prayer-book,  which  aims  to  be  the  expression  of 
a  religious  community  that  rests  on  a  positive  historical 
foundation,  must  not  only  uplift  and  edify  the  spirit  of 
the  worshiper,  as  does  every  prayer-book,  but  it  must  in- 
dicate that  positive  foundation  in  its  peculiarity  as  it  ap- 
pears in  doctrine  and  history. 

2.  Spirit  and  heart  must  be  addressed  in  a  manner  as 
compatible  as  possible  with  the  modern  status  of  European 
culture  and  views  of  life. 

3.  The  existing  and  traditionally  received  material  is 
to  be  retained  preferentially,  as  long  as  it  does  not  contro- 
vert the  requirements  indicated  above. 

4.  The  entire  content  of  the  prayer-book,  as  well  as  of 
the  whole  service,  must  be  permeated  with  the  pure  teach- 
ing of  our  ancestral  religion ;  whatsoever  opposes  this  must 
be  removed.  * 

The  commission  was  guided  too  much  by  the  spirit  of 

1  Theologische  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des  neuen  israelitischen  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg,  Introd.  10,  11. 


HO  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

compromise;  as  was  the  case  with  the  first  edition  of  the 
prayer-book  so  also  in  the  revision,  there  were  no  fixed 
guiding  principles;  in  defense  of  their  course  the  com- 
mission claimed  that  "had  they  been  truly  and  fully  con- 
sistent they  would  have  had  a  book  true  to  principle,  but 
they  would  have  had  no  congregation ;  even  in  the  most 
favorable  case  their  congregation  would  have  became  en- 
tirely isolated  from  the  rest  of  the  Jewish  community ;" 
therefore  they  took  the  middle  course  and  avoided  ex- 
tremes. 

Still  despite  this,  their  expectation  was  not  fulfilled. 
The  book  appeared  about  the  same  time  that  the  Temple, 
owing  to  the  growth  of  the  membership,  was  enlarged. 
For  twenty  years  the  congregation  had  grown  and  pros- 
pered and  comparative  peace  had  reigned  between  it  and 
the  orthodox  community.  These  two  events,  however,  the 
new  addition  to  the  Temple  and  the  new  edition  of  the 
prayer-book,  stirred  the  latent  opposition  into  flame,  and 
were  the  signals  for  the  new  agitation  which  caused  this 
congregation  to  occupy  the  central  place  in  the  religious 
life  of  German  Jewry  a  second  time  and  stamped  it  as  the 
particular  representative  of  the  reform  cause.  The  eccle- 
siastical chief  of  the  orthodox  community,  the  so-called 
Chakam,  Isaac  Bernays,  issued  a  public  notice  (nxniD) 
warning  all  Israelites  not  to  use  this  book  and  declaring 
that  any  one  who  did  so  did  not  perform  his  duty  as  a  Jew. 
This  document  appeared  on  October  16,  1841,  two  months 
after  the  publication  of  the  prayer-book.  It  was  promul- 
gated far  and  wide  and  the  Temple  authorities  found  it 
necessary  to  answer  it;  on  October  21  they  published  the 
following  declaration,  which  was  signed  by  J.  Warendorff, 
temporary  president,  Dr.  G.  Riesser, 1  Dr.  M.  Frankel  and 

1  In  a  letter  to  M.  Veit,  dated  Dec.  11,  1841,  Eiesser  deprecates  the 
action  of  the  orthodox  party  in  calling  in  the  aid  of  the  government 
against  the  reformers;  see  Aus  M.  Veit's  Nachlass  Mittheilungen 
von  Ludwig  Geiger.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1895,  189.  In  a  former  letter  he 


PKAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  HI 

E.  J.  Jonas:  " Since  Mr.  Isaac  Bernays  has  deemed  it 
proper  to  declare  in  the  local  synagogues  that  our  prayer- 
book  violates  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion, the  directorate  of  the  new  temple  association,  after 
due  consultation  with  its  preachers,  considers  it  incumbent 
upon  itself  to  declare,  both  to  the  members  of  our  associa- 
tion and  to  all  who  attend  our  services : 

1.  Mr.  Isaac  Bernays  has  no  authority,  as  far  as  our 
organization  is  concerned,  to  condemn  us  publicly  as  he 
has ;  hence  this  condemnation  is  to  be  spurned  as  unseemly. 

2.  A  malicious,  intentional  disregard  of  the  contents 
of  the  prayer-book  is  apparent  in  the  judgment  given ;  the 
accusations  moreover  evince  the  densest  ignorance  of  all 
theologico-liturgical  knowledge. 

3.  Therefore  such  a  proceeding  can  affect  in  nowise  the 
members  of  the  Temple  Society  who  recognize  in  it  only 
the  expression  of  powerless  partisanship ;  they  regret  it, 
because  the  seed  of  discord  has  been  sown  in  the  congrega- 
tion in  so  wanton  a  manner  and  because  the  cloak  of  religion 
has  been  used  to  cover  such  a  course. 

Still  this  statement  did  not  end  the  controversy;  indeed 
it  proved  only  the  beginning.  True,  by  an  order  of  the 
Senate  of  Hamburg,  of  January  12,  1842,  Bernays'  njnio 
was  removed  from  the  synagogues ;  the  Temple  authorities 
had  removed  their  counter-declaration  some  time  before. 
In  place  of  the  njmo  the  Chakam  substituted  a  Caution 
(mnTK)  :  "it  is  forbidden  to  pray  the  obligatory  prayers 
and  benedictions  from  the  book  which  appeared  here  dur- 
ing the  past  year  entitled  'Prayers  for  Israelites.'  :  The 
public  notice  and  the  Caution  of  Chakam  Bernays  at- 
tracted such  widespread  attention  that  the  directorate  of 

had  denounced  the  unfortunate  habit  of  the  Jews  to  seek  govern- 
mental interference  in  the  management  of  their  internal  affairs. 
His  own  standpoint  he  expressed  clearly  in  the  words,  "Unser 
hochstes  Prinzip  muss  immer  das  der  Freiheit,  der  unabhangigen 
inneren  Entwickelung  sein,"  ibid.,  188. 


112  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  Temple  considered  it  necessary  to  obtain  the  opinions 
of  recognized  Jewish  theological  authorities  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  prayer-book  justified  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  Chakam  as  being  a  non-Jewish  prayer-book, 
implied  in  his  statement  that  any  one  using  it  did  not  per- 
form his  duty  as  an  Israelite ;  they  obtained  responses  from 
twelve  well-known  rabbis :  J.  Aub  of  Baireuth,  J.  L.  Auer- 
bach  of  Leipzig,  A.  Chorin  of  Arad,  J.  A.  Friedlander  of 
Brilon,  Abraham  Geiger  of  Breslau,  M.  Gutmann  of  Red- 
witz,  S.  Holdheim  of  Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  A.  Kohn  of 
Hohenems,  J.  Maier  of  Stuttgart,  I.  N.  Mannheimer  of 
Vienna,  L.  Philippson  of  Magdeburg,  and  L.  Stein  of 
Burgkunstadt.  The  two  rabbis  of  the  temple,  Drs.  G.  Salo- 
mon *  and  N.  Frankfurter, 2  had  expressed  their  views  in 
separate  publications  shortly  before.  In  the  preface  to  the 
volume  containing  these  responses,  the  directorate,  through 
their  spokesman  Dr.  M.  Frankel,  stated  that  ''twelve  theo- 
logical opinions  are  more  than  sufficient  to  outweigh  two 
ungrounded  declarations  and  to  prove  their  instability. 
Time  has  passed  judgment  on  the  rabbis  of  1819.  Had 
we  desired  we  could  have  increased  the  number,  if  we  had 
wished  to  address  all  Jewish  theologians  who  combine  piety 
with  a  free  scientific  spirit.  The  directorate  of  the  temple 
wished  to  exclude  no  worthy  rabbi;  they  addressed  a  cer- 
tain number  of  theologians  known  to  them  with  the  hope 
that  others  would  voluntarily  join  the  number." 

The  twelve  opinions  were  preceded  by  an  introduction 
in  two  parts  written  by  Dr.  Frankel ;  the  first  part  giving 
the  history  of  the  controversy  and  the  second  being  a  dis- 
quisition on  the  Temple  Society,  its  reason  for  existence, 
its  place  in  the  religious  life  of  the  day  and  its  relation  to 
Judaism  at  large. 3 

1Das  neue  Gebetbuch  und  seine  Verlcetzerung  ;  sine  ira  et  cum 
studio.  Hamburg,  1841. 

2  Stillstand  und  Fortschritt.     Hamburg,  1841. 

*Dr.  G.  Salomon,  the  preacher  of  the  congregation,  also  issued  a 


PEAYEE-BOOK  CONTEOVEESY  H3 

One  of  the  chief  charges  advanced  against  the  prayer- 
book  was  that  it  denied  leading  Jewish  doctrines,  notably 
the  doctrines  of  the  Messiah,  the  bodily  resurrection  and 
the  eventual  redemption  of  Israel  by  the  restoration  to  the 
land  of  Palestine.  Dr.  Salomon,  the  rabbi  of  the  temple, 
at  once  published  an  essay,  1 1  The  New  Prayer-Book  and  its 
Persecution,"  wherein  he  defended  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
book  and  cited  accredited  authorities  with  whose  opinions 
the  book  was  in  perfect  accord.  On  one  point,  however,  he 
was  forced  to  acknowledge  the  correctness  of  the  charges, 
and  that  was  in  reference  to  the  Messianic  belief.  The 
traditional  belief  was  in  the  coming  of  the  personal  Mes- 
siah; the  view  expressed  in  the  prayer-book  was  the  hope 
for  the  coming  of  the  Messianic  time  without  any  reference 
to  Palestine  and  without  the  reinstitution  of  the  sacrificial 
cult;  this  change  of  view  necessitated  certain  alterations 
in  the  traditional  form  of  the  prayers;  these  alterations 
consisted  for  the  most  part  in  the  elimination  of  those  ex- 
pressions which  indicated  these  beliefs  and  hopes.  How- 
ever, even  here  vacillation  was  apparent ;  some  prayers  were 
retained  which  should  have  been  struck  out  had  the  com- 
pilers of  the  book  been  truly  consistent.  Thus,  on  the  one 
hand,  they  omitted  such  supplications  as  the  following  in 
the  Mussaf  of  the  holidays:  " Gather  together  our  dis- 
persed from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth  and  assemble  our 
exiled  from  the  uttermost  parts  thereof  and  restore  us  with 
exultation  to  thy  city  Zion  and  to  Jerusalem  thy  holy 
house,  with  everlasting  joy/'  etc.;  also  this,  " Build  thy 
house  as  aforetimes  and  establish  thy  temple  firmly  and  let 
us  see  its  erection  and  gladden  us  with  its  restoration  and 
bring  back  the  priests  to  their  ministrations,  the  Levites  to 
their  songs,  the  Israelites  to  their  homes;  thither  will  we 
pilgrim  and  appear  before  thee  and  prostrate  ourselves  on 

history  of  the  same  several  years  later  under  the  title  Kurzgefasste 
Geschichte  des  neuen  israelitischen  Tempels  in  Hamburg  wdhrend  der 
ersten  25  Jdhren  seines  Bestehens.     Hamburg,  1844. 
8 


THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  three  high  feasts. ' '  The  omission  of  such  supplications 
seemed  to  indicate  clearly  the  position  of  the  congregation 
on  this  question  of  the  return  to  Palestine,  the  reinstitution 
of  the  sacrifices,  the  rebuilding  of  the  Temple,  and  the 
restoration  of  the  Jewish  state.  They  seemed  to  declare 
that  they  had  repudiated  Israel's  nationalistic  hopes  and 
had  given  a  purely  spiritual  interpretation  to  the  Messianic 
idea,  taking  it  in  its  universal  meaning  as  the  Messianic 
era  of  peace  and  justice.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  a 
number  of  the  nationalistic  prayers  which  supplicated  for 
the  coming  of  a  personal  Messiah  and  the  rebuilding  of  the 
Temple  of  Jerusalem  were  retained ;  for  example,  ' '  let  our 
eyes  see  thy  return  to  Zion  in  mercy, ' '  and  the  prayer  * '  that 
God  take  pity  on  his  sanctuary,  rebuild  it  speedily  and  in- 
crease its  glory."  Here  was  a  manifest  inconsistency;  it 
looked  like  an  attempt  at  compromise;  on  the  one  hand, 
the  desire  of  the  Jews  to  be  considered  citizens  of  the  land 
in  which  they  dwelt  necessitated  the  repudiation  of  the  be- 
lief in  Palestine  as  their  fatherland;  on  the  other,  the 
anxiety  to  remain  in  good  repute  as  part  and  parcel  of  the 
whole  community  of  Israel  caused  them  to  retain  certain 
prayers  which  petitioned  for  the  return  of  God  to  Zion. 
The  compilers  of  the  book  felt  this  to  be  inconsistent,  and 
Dr.  Salomon  in  his  defense  attempted  to  explain  it  away 
by  declaring  that  the  Temple  congregation  did  believe  in 
the  restoration,  but  "it  does  not  believe  that  the  restora- 
tion is  conditioned  by  the  bodily  personal  presence  of  each 
and  every  Israelite  in  the  land  of  Palestine.  We  can  desire 
with  all  our  hearts  the  re-establishment  of  an  unfortunate 
fatherland,  can  even  make  supplication  to  God  for  this, 
and  become  enthusiastic  for  the  idea;  and  together  with 
this  we  can  remain  in  the  land  wherein  Divine  Providence 
has  placed  us,  continue  to  live  there  and  obey,  serve,  and 
give  allegiance  to  its  ruling  powers."  He  instances  the 
fact  that  many  Jews  remained  in  Babylon  at  the  time  of 
the  return  from  the  Babylonian  exile.  This  explanation 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  115 

does  not  explain;  it  is  a  begging  the  question.  But  one 
of  two  positions  is  possible  in  this  matter,  either  the  belief 
that  the  Jews  everywhere  are  in  a  state  of  exile  and  will 
remain  in  this  state  until  God  in  his  own  time  will  put 
an  end  to  the  exile  and  restore  them  to  Palestine  under 
the  leadership  of  a  personal  Messiah,  or  the  belief  that  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  over  the  world  is  providential,  that 
nationally  they  are  not  distinct  and  have  no  national  hopes 
other  than  those  of  their  fellow  citizens  of  other  faiths,  that 
the  future  of  Judaism  is  to  find  its  consummation  not  in  the 
re-establishment  of  the  Jewish  state  but  in  the  fulfillment 
of  the  prophetic  visions  of  universal  peace  and  the  universal 
acceptance  of  the  unity  of  God.  The  one  conception  con- 
siders the  repossession  of  Palestine  the  crowning  of  Israel's 
career,  the  other  claims  that  Israel's  early  life  in  Palestine 
was  the  preparation  for  its  larger  work  in  all  parts  of  the 
world  during  the  dispersion. 

In  his  statement  concerning  the  preparation  of  the  prayer- 
book  Dr.  Frankel,  one  of  the  compilers,  pleaded  guilty  to 
the  charge  of  inconsistency,  but  excused  the  commission 
on  the  ground  that  thoroughgoing  consistency  would  have 
involved  complete  severance  from  the  Jewish  community 
at  large;  this  they  desired  to  avoid  and  therefore  they 
sailed  the  middle  course ;  the  result  proved  disappointing ; 
the  orthodox  chiefs  condemned  the  book  for  its  changes 
and  emendations  and  declared  it  heretical,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  congregation  lost  the  opportunity  of  stand- 
ing as  a  true  leader,  championing  those  new  ideas  for  a 
bold  and  uncompromising  declaration  of  which  thousands 
were  waiting.  Instead  of  trying  to  justify  their  position 
as  reformers  the  Temple  authorities  were  anxious  to  prove 
the  acceptability  of  the  prayer-book  even  from  the  tradi- 
tional standpoint.  The  Hamburg  congregation  indicated 
the  possibilities  of  a  strong  concerted  movement,  but  it  did 
not  become  what  it  might  have  been,  the  leader  of  such  a 
mighty  forward  work.  It  obtained  the  opinions  declaring 


THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  validity  of  its  prayer-book  even  from  the  traditional 
Jewish  standpoint,  and  continued  a  single,  isolated,  sepa- 
ratist congregation.  It  never  advanced  beyond  the  stand- 
point it  took  at  the  start ;  it  had  great  possibilities  but  did 
not  realize  them ;  the  formation  of  the  congregation  was  a 
great  achievement,  its  members  were  content  to  rest  on  these 
laurels;  the  birth-throes  seemed  to  have  exhausted  the 
energies.  * 

All  the  opinions  published  in  the  collection  ' '  Theological 
Opinions  on  the  Prayer-Book  of  the  New  Israelitish  Temple 
Society  in  Hamburg"2  condemned  Bernays'  attitude  to- 
ward the  prayer-book  without  reservation.  They  all  de- 
clared in  different  ways  that  the  prayer-book  conformed 
completely  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism,  and  that  any  one 
who  prayed  from  it  performed  his  full  duty  as  an  Israelite. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  these  opinions  at  length  or  even 
in  an  abbreviated  form,  although  they  present  an  interest- 
ing array  of  facts  and  opinions  on  the  very  important  ques- 
tion of  the  liturgy.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  reproduce  here 
two  of  these  opinions  representative  of  the  radical  and  con- 
servative wings  of  Jewish  thought,  viz.,  the  opinions  of 
Samuel  Holdheim  the  radical  and  Isaac  Noa  Mannheimer 
the  conservative. 

Immediately  upon  the  appearance  of  the  prayer-book 
Holdheim  had  published  a  review  of  it  in  pamphlet  form 
with  the  title  "The  Prayer-Book  of  the  New  Israelitish 
Temple  in  Hamburg. " 3  In  this  he  declared  that  the 
prayer-book  was  entirely  satisfactory  and  could  be  used  in 
any  Jewish  congregation  because  it  disparaged  no  historical 
truth,  no  essential  doctrine  of  Judaism,  no  tradition  of  the 

1  See  Geiger  in  letter  of  Feb.  9,  1842,  to  J.  Derenbourg:  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
LX  (1896),  345. 

3  Theologische  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Geb- 
rauche  des  neuen  israelitischen  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg.  Ham- 
burg, 1842. 

8  Ueler  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche  des  neuen  israelitischen 
Tempels  zu  Hamburg.  Hamburg,  1841. 


PEAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  117 

synagogue,  no  universally  acknowledged  rabbinical  nor 
any  positive  Biblical  law.  It  steered  the  middle  course 
and  satisfied  the  progressive  as  well  as  the  conservative 
party.  Somewhat  later  he  felt  called  upon  to  write  a 
second  pamphlet  in  defense  of  the  Temple  and  its  prayer- 
book,  entitled, ' '  Heresy  Hunting  and  Liberty  of  Conscience. 
A  second  vote "  *  in  answer  to  a  violent  anonymous  attack 
"Jew  and  non-Jew.  An  answer  to  the  Writings  of  the 
Triple  Alliance."2  The  triple  alliance  referred  to  was 
Holdheim  and  the  two  preachers  of  the  Temple,  Salomon 
and  Frankfurter,  all  three  of  whom  had  issued  publications 
in  defense  of  the  prayer-book. 3 

In  his  opinion,  published  in  the  collection,*  Holdheim 
averred  that  the  book  contained  no  changes  from  the  tradi- 
tional ritual  that  are  subversive  of  the  spirit  of  Judaism; 
the  changes  are  only  such  as  are  necessitated  by  the  devel- 
opment of  the  universal  conception  of  Judaism  out  of  the 
national;  this  change  was  given  point  to  even  in  ancient 
times  by  the  establishment  of  the  synagogues  as  houses  of 
prayer  to  take  the  place  of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  the 
national  religious  centre.  As  for  the  spiritual  interpreta- 
tion which  the  authors  of  the  prayer-book  give  to  the  Mes- 
sianic belief,  as  contrasted  with  the  personal  and  as  affect- 
ing all  mankind  and  not  Israel  alone,  they  deserve  our 
thanks.  They  have  accentuated  the  prophetic  interpreta- 
tion of  the  doctrine ;  they  have  succeeded  in  combining  the 
traditional  Jewish  spirit  with  the  universal  teaching  which 
is  the  finest  flower  of  prophetic  Judaism,  and  they  have 
done  well  in  eliminating  from  the  prayer-book  all  those 


1  VerTcetzerung  und  Gewissensfreiheit :  ein  zweites  Votum.  Schwerin, 
1842. 

*Jude  und  NicJitjude:  eine  Erwiderung  auf  die  Schriften  der 
Tripel-Allianz.  Amsterdam,  1842. 

8  Supra,  112. 

4  TheologiscJie  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebeibuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des  neuen  israelitischen  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg,  73  ff. 


118  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

elements  which  are  incompatible  with  the  pristine  teachings 
of  the  synagogue  and  with  the  spirit  of  modern  culture. 

Mannheimer, 1  the  celebrated  Viennese  preacher,  a  man 
of  a  decidedly  conservative  bent,  declared  that  the  per- 
mission to  use  the  vernacular  in  place  of  the  Hebrew  as 
the  language  of  prayer  was  indisputable  even  from  the 
Talmudico-rabbinical  standpoint.  The  excision,  changing 
or  recasting  of  the  piyyutim  and  selichot,  is  the  prerogative 
of  every  congregation.  It  can  be  proven  easily  that  the 
inclusion  of  the  piyyutim  in  the  ritual  was  disputed  with 
much  greater  justice  than  is  their  exclusion  to-day. 

A  number  of  prayers  were  simply  the  individual  expres- 
sions of  their  authors  and  were  never  intended  to  have 
lasting  validity  and  authority.  Such  are  the  late  Dim  Kim, 
the  pentateuchal  prayer  for  Mondays  and  Thursdays,  the 
so-called  flttl  TP,  the  long  drawn  out  confession  of  sins 
(KBIT  5y)  in  the  ritual  of  the  Day  of  Atonement ;  such  and 
others  like  them  can  be  either  abbreviated  or  abolished 
without  sinning  against  the  rules  of  the  ritual. 

He  goes  on  to  say :  ' '  Although  I  usually  plead  for  histor- 
ical continuity  and  tradition  yet  I  cannot  but  agree  with 
the  stand  taken  by  the  authors  of  the  book  in  the  matter  of 
the  omission  of  the  prayers  for  the  reinstitution  of  the 
sacrifices;  they  have  merely  expressed  what  all  modern 
enlightened  theologians  think,  even  such  as  cling  with  all 
their  hearts  to  the  inherited  traditions  and  forms;  I  am 
one  of  those  who  do  not  rationalize  the  Messianic  belief; 
I  believe  in  and  defend  the  national  interpretation  of  this 
dogma  and  hope  for  a  national  restoration,  yet  I  am  free 
to  confess  openly  that  the  reinstitution  of  the  bloody  sac- 
rificial ritual  does  not  form  part  and  parcel  of  these  hopes 
and  promises;  see  the  many  expressions  of  the  prophets, 
the  sages,  and  notably  Maimonides,  who  declares  that  the 
sacrifices  were  intended  only  for  the  child-period  of  Israel's 
development.  .  .  . 

1  Theologische  Gutachten  uber  das  Gebetbuch  nach  dem  Gebrauche 
des  neun  israelitische  Tempelvereins  in  Hamburg,  94  ff. 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  H9 

"If  Bernays  had  contented  himself  with  warning  his 
own  followers  and  all  such  as  cling  to  the  traditional  ritual 
against  the  use  of  this  prayer-book  no  one  could  have 
objected.  But  decided  protest  must  be  entered  against  the 
animus  wherewith  he  attacks  an  honorable  congregation 
that  has  pursued  the  highest  ideals  for  the  past  twenty-two 
years ;  such  bigotry  and  one-sidedness  cannot  be  condemned 
too  strongly;  the  less  that  the  rabbis  of  the  school  of  Ber- 
nays have  taken  to  heart  the  need  of  remodelling  the  serv- 
ice, and  the  more  that  they  have  viewed  with  indifference 
the  estrangement  of  thousands  from  the  house  of  God,  the 
less  right  have  they  to  pretend  to  be  zealous  in  the  cause  of 
God  as  over  against  such  as  have  taken  active  steps  to  stem 
the  tide  of  indifference  and  reclaim  those  who  have  drifted 
away. ' ' 

One  other  opinion  must  be  mentioned  although  it  did  not 
appear  in  the  collection  published  by  the  Temple  author- 
ities, namely  that *  of  Zacharias  Frankel,  chief  rabbi  of 
Dresden.  Frankel,  one  of  the  foremost  Jewish  scholars 
and  rabbis  of  the  time,  became  known  as  the  leading  ex- 
ponent of  what  he  termed  "positive  historical  Judaism;" 
he  claimed  to  occupy  the  middle  position  between  the  re- 
formers and  the  party  of  strict  tradition.  He  condemned 
the  action  of  Bernays,  as  he  would  any  presumptuous  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  constituted  authority  to  interfere  with 
the  spirit  of  progress.  To  his  mind  the  prayer-book  was 
open  to  criticism  because  the  compilers  had  not  been  guided 
by  any  strict  principle  of  procedure;  they  had  exercised 
an  unauthorized  eclecticism  in  the  omission  and  retention 
of  prayers.  He  breaks  a  lance  with  the  ' '  templeites "  on 
the  Messianic  question;  here  he  is  altogether  at  variance 
with  them ;  he  claims  that  the  hope  of  the  return  to  Pales- 
tine still  had  power  to  arouse  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Jew 
and  that  a  future  independent  existence  was  the  true  con- 
summation of  Israel's  Messianic  hopes.  Still,  in  spite  of 

1  Orient,  1842,  Nos.  7,  8,  9. 


120  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Ms  objections  to  the  book,  Frankel  was  frank  to  acknowl- 
edge that  the  intention  and  aim  of  the  Hamburg  congrega- 
tion were  honest,  but  he  feared  that  its  mode  of  procedure 
was  schismatic. 

Salomon  answered  this  criticism  in  a  caustic  and  ironical 
rejoinder, *  in  which  he  repeated  his  views  on  the  Messianic 
idea.  Frankel  replied,  and  set  forth  his  thoughts  on  the 
question  a  second  time  at  great  length. 2  This  then  was 
really  the  pivot  on  which  the  reform  movement  was  to 
revolve;  if  Judaism  was  a  universal  religion  as  the  re- 
formers claimed,  then  all  things  connected  with  the  relig- 
ion, as  ceremonies,  doctrines,  and  laws,  must  be  interpreted 
in  this  light;  the  dead  hand  of  the  past  must  be  removed 
and  the  present  be  given  due  and  proper  consideration  as 
a  vital  factor  in  the  development  of  the  faith ;  if,  however, 
Judaism  was  a  national  religion,  then  had  the  prophets 
dreamed  vain  things  and  uttered  foolish  babblings;  the 
issue  was  becoming  well  defined ; ' '  either  a  common  country 
or  a  common  idea ; " 3  either  Judaism  had  the  power  and 
potency  of  a  world  religion  and  could  satisfy  the  spiritual 
aspirations  of  mankind,  or  it  was  fitted  to  be  only  the  re- 
ligious experience  of  a  single  race;  the  outlook  of  the  re- 
formers was  the  world,  that  of  their  opponents  a  corner  of 
western  Asia. 

The  practical  result  of  all  this  agitation,  as  far  as  the 
Hamburg  Temple  congregation  was  concerned,  was  that 
it  became  more  assured  in  its  position  as  an  independent 
congregation,  and  was  permitted  to  pursue  its  course  peace- 
ably and  quietly;  on  December  7,  1845,  a  commission  was 
appointed  by  the  congregation,  consisting  of  the  two  rabbis, 

1  Sendschreiben  an  Herrn  Dr.  Zacharias  Frankel  in  Betreff  seines 
im  "Orient"  mitgetheilten  Gutachtens  uber  das  neue  Gebetbuch  der 
Tempelgemeinde  in  Hamburg.  Hamburg,  1842. 

*Erwiderung  auf  das  von  Herrn  Dr.  Salomon,  Prediger  am  neuen 
israelitischen  Tempel  zu  Hamburg,  an  mich  gerichtete  Sendschreiben. 
Literaturblatt  des  Orients,  1842,  Nos.  23  and  24. 

'Zangwill,  The  Dreamers  of  the  Ghetto,  533.     Philadelphia,  1898. 


PRAYER-BOOK  CONTROVERSY  121 

one  member  of  the  directorate,  and  four  members  of  the 
congregation,  to  which  were  to  be  referred  all  matters  per- 
taining to  the  public  service  and  such  private  domestic 
functions  as  were  of  a  religious  nature ;  *  this  commission 
was  to  bear  in  mind  always  the  purpose  of  the  temple 
organization,  viz.,  "the  combining  of  the  spirit  of  the  re- 
ligious consciousness  of  the  age  with  the  historical  spirit  of 
Judaism." 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J..  X  (1846),  100-102,  where  the  rules  governing  the  work 
of  this  commission  are  given;  the  most  significant  of  these  rules  was 
the  stipulation  that  the  commission  was  to  subject  the  contents  of  the 
prayer-book  to  a  careful  revision  every  five  years  so  as  to  keep  it 
abreast  of  the  development  of  the  time;  to  add  new  prayers,  if  neces- 
sary, to  eliminate  passages  if  this  were  found  requisite.  The  purpose 
of  this  resolution  was  most  laudable,  viz.,  to  make  the  prayer-book 
progressively  expressive  of  the  developing  religious  spirit  through 
periodical  revision.  The  resolution,  however,  remained  a  paper  regu- 
lation, for  the  periodical  revisions  did  not  take  place. 


CHAPTER  V 
EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND 

OUR  story  of  the  movement  for  religious  reform  in  Juda- 
ism has  been  confined  thus  far  almost  exclusively  to  Ger- 
many, but  the  movement  spread  beyond  the  borders  of  that 
country,  and  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  and  in  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  a 
stirring  episode  in  the  conflict  between  the  old  and  new 
tendencies  in  Judaism  was  enacted  in  the  British  metrop- 
olis. Before  giving  a  detailed  account  of  this  it  will  be 
necessary  to  indicate  briefly  the  religious  conditions  in 
London  at  the  time  when  the  first  official  effort  towards 
reform  was  made,  viz.,  in  the  year  1836.  As  throughout 
Europe,  the  bulk  of  the  Jews  in  London  had,  up  to  the 
nineteenth  century,  acquired  but  little  if  any  education  in 
secular  branches  of  knowledge.  They  were  cut  off  almost 
absolutely  from  all  contact  with*  the  outer  world,  except 
in  business  relations  involved  in  transactions  on  the  Stock 
Exchange.  The  education  of  the  great  majority  of  the 
children  was  received  in  schools  that  were  scarcely  worthy 
the  name.  The  Spanish  and  Portuguese  congregation  con- 
ducted a  day  school  called  "Shaare  Ticvah"  (Gates  of 
Hope),  in  which,  according  to  the  statement  of  a  promi- 
nent member  of  the  congregation,  the  boys  "were  taught 
little  Hebrew  and  less  English.  For  aught  they  knew 
Julius  Caesar  was  a  Lord  Mayor  of  London  some  fifty  years 
ago,  the  equator  may  be  the  name  of  a  strange  animal,  and 
Alps  and  Pyrenees  are,  perhaps,  two  kinds  of  foreign  fruit. 
And  in  this  state  of  mind  they  leave  the  school  where  they 
are  supposed  to  have  been  instructed  for  years,  and  enter 

122 


REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  123 

the  world,  throwing  upon  the  establishment  and  upon  the 
authorities  who  look  after  them  the  greatest  disgrace. ' ' * 
The  Talmud  Torah,  the  day  school  conducted  by  the 
German  Polish  congregation,  was  no  better,  being  presided 
over  by  a  melammed,  himself  frequently  ignorant  and  un- 
couth, who  confined  his  teaching  to  Hebrew  and  the  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible  into  Yiddish.  English  was  never  heard 
in  the  schoolroom.  Matters  improved  considerably  with 
the  organization  of  the  Jews'  Free  School  as  a  primary 
school  in  which  secular  branches  also  were  taught.  This 
was  the  beginning  of  the  educational  emancipation  of  the 
Jews  of  London  from  the  regime  of  the  cheder  and  the 
melammed,  and  all  that  these  two  institutions  implied. 

Religiously  speaking,  the  Jews  of  London  were  divided 
into  two  communities,  the  Sephardi  or  Spanish-Portuguese 
and  the  Ashkenazi  or  German-Polish;  the  affairs  of  the 
Sephardi  community,  with  its  historic  synagogue  in  Bevis 
Marks,  were  regulated  by  the  Mohamad,  or  governing 
board,  consisting  of  four  wardens  and  the  treasurer.  The 
rule  of  the  Mohamad  was  well-nigh  despotic ;  it  was  almost 
an  oligarchy. 

The  Ascamoth,  or  rules  of  the  Spanish-Portuguese  con- 
gregation, prescribed  the  course  of  life  of  the  members  not 
only  within  the  synagogue  but  also  without. 2  For  ex- 
ample, no  member  of  the  congregation  was  permitted  to 
bring  any  suit  against  another  member  in  any  court  of 
law,  civil  or  criminal,  without  first  giving  notice  thereof 
to  the  Mohamad;  failure  to  comply  with  this  regulation 
involved  the  payment  of  a  fine  of  five  pounds.  The  only 
exception  to  this  was  a  suit  in  which  "delay  might  prove 
prejudicial,"  or  one  arising  from  failure  to  meet  a  Bill  of 
Exchange.  Further,  the  members  were  forbidden  to  pub- 
lish any  book  treating  of  religion  or  politics  in  any  language 

1  Quoted  in  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  18,  1897,  p.  17. 

2  Gaster,  History  of  the  Ancient  Synagogue  of  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese Jews,  15.     London,  1901. 


124  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

without  the  permission  of  the  Mohamad;  they  were  also 
forbidden  to  join  any  party  ''which  any  of  the  people  may 
form  against  the  government  or  ministry  or  judicial  ad- 
ministration of  the  kingdom."1 

These  rules,  as  a  matter  of  course,  date  back  to  the  time 
when  the  Jews  were  a  tolerated  alien  community,  and  great 
care  had  to  be  exercised  lest  any  suspicion  of  any  kind 
attach  to  any  one  of  their  number  as  being  opposed  to  the 
powers  that  were,  or  sympathizing  with  any  sentiment  or 
movement  against  them.  The  rules  of  the  German  syna- 
gogue did  not  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  political  opin- 
ions or  activity  of  the  members,  but  disputes  between 
members  of  the  synagogue  were  brought  frequently  before 
the  governing  board  and  settled  without  recourse  to  the 
courts  of  the  land. 

Such  rules  and  regulations  were  possible  of  enactment 
and  enforcement  because  the  Jews  were  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  a  separate  community 2— or  really  two  separate 
communities— and  could  continue  in  force  only  so  long  as 
this  remained  the  case;  this  jurisdiction  of  the  synagogue 
over  the  public  activities  of  its  members  had  to  cease  with 
the  letting  down  of  the  barriers  that  excluded  the  Jews 
from  participation  in  the  civil  and  political  activities  of 
the  country.  At  the  time  whereof  I  am  writing  the  agita- 
tion for  the  civil  emancipation  of  the  Jews  had  been  re- 
newed. In  1753  a  bill  for  the  emancipation  of  the  Jews 
had  passed  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  but  had  been  re- 
pealed at  the  instance  of  the  populace ;  since  then  the  bill 
had  been  introduced  into  the  Lower  House  several  times, 
but  in  1831  most  determined  steps  were  taken  by  Robert 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  June  11,  1897,  p.  12. 

8  This  was  clearly  expressed  as  late  as  1844  by  Lord  Chancellor 
Lyndhurst,  who,  in  rendering  a  decision  in  a  Jewish  marriage  case, 
said:  "They  [the  Jews]  are  treated  in  these  decisions  as  a  distinct 
people,  governed,  as  to  this  subject,  by  their  own  religious  observ- 
ances and  institutions,  among  which  marriage  is  included. "  Voice 
of  Jacob,  III,  128. 


BEFOBM  IN  ENGLAND  125 

Grant,  Lord  Macaulay,  and  other  famous  members  of  Par- 
liament; the  bill  had  passed  in  the  Commons  but  was  de- 
feated in  the  House  of  Lords;  the  friends  of  the  measure 
never  ceased  agitating  for  it  from  that  time  onward  until 
it  was  finally  passed  in  the  House  of  Lords  in  1858,  and 
thus  became  a  law  of  the  land. 

All  these  movements  for  educational  and  civil  emanci- 
pation worked  together  just  as  was  the  case  in  Germany, 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  spirit  of  freedom 
which  called  these  activities  into  play  made  itself  felt  also 
in  the  religious  life,  and  gave  a  great  impetus  to  the  senti- 
ment of  dissatisfaction  with  the  conditions  in  the  synagogue 
which  had  received  occasional  expression  even  before  the 
organization  of  the  reform  congregation. 

Furthermore,  the  influence  of  the  movement  for  reform 
in  Germany  must  be  taken  into  account.  That  this  influ- 
ence was  of  moment  in  the  agitation  for  religious  reform 
in  England  may  be  gathered  from  the  first  official  mention 
we  have  of  the  movement  in  that  country  among  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese  congregation.  A 
petition  was  presented  to  the  Mohamad  on  December  4, 
1836,  by  a  number  of  the  members,  asking  for  the  intro- 
duction into  the  service  of  "such  alterations  and  modifica- 
tions as  were  in  the  line  of  the  changes  introduced  in  the 
reform  synagogue  in  Hamburg  and  other  places. ' ' 1  Some 
time  before  this,  however,  in  the  year  1812,  a  member  of 
this  congregation,  J.  King  by  name,  had  addressed  the 
wardens,  calling  attention  to  the  indecorum  during  the 
services  and  claiming  that  as  matters  stood  the  synagogue 
"was  not  a  place  of  devotion  and  prayers  could  be  better 
said  in  the  closet."  He  called  upon  the  officers  to  intro- 
duce reforms,  but  his  suggestions  received  scant  consider- 
ation, as  did  also  subsequent  communications  which  he 

1  Gaster,  History  of  the  Ancient  Synagogue  of  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese Jews,  p.  169. 


126  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

addressed  to  them  on  the  same  subject.1  Sixteen  years 
later,  on  December  4,  1828,  a  committee  for  the  Promotion 
of  Religious  Worship  was  appointed  to  inquire  into  and 
recommend  the  best  means  of  raising  the  tone  of  the  pub- 
lic service  and  infusing  therein  greater  decorum  and  de- 
votion; the  committee  suggested  a  number  of  measures  to 
this  end;  they  recommended  that  the  Mahamad  take  steps 
to  shorten  the  service  as  far  as  practicable,  but  the  most 
interesting  portion  of  their  report  is  that  in  which  they 
declared  that  moral  and  religious  discourses  were  essential, 
and  therefore  they  urged  that  an  English  sermon  be 
delivered  every  Saturday  afternoon  and  its  text  be  taken 
from  Scripture;  this  suggestion  was  acted  upon  and  such 
sermons  were  delivered  for  some  years,  beginning  in  1831, 
the  preacher  being  the  Rev.  D.  A.  de  Sola,  but  after  a  brief 
period  this  practice  was  discontinued  until  a  later  day. 2 

In  May,  1821,  a  number  of  prominent  members  of  the 
chief  Ashkenazi  synagogue,  surnamed  the  Great,  called  the 
attention  of  the  officers  of  the  congregation  to  the  inde- 
corum that  prevailed  during  the  public  worship ;  they 
claimed  that  this  was  caused  in  great  part  by  the  prolonged 
Misheberak  (benedictions  for  money  offerings),  and  peti- 
tioned that  this  portion  of  the  service  be  shortened,  for, 
wrote  they,  "it  is  pitiful  to  behold  how  indecently  our 
solemn  services  are  hurried  on,  particularly  during  the 
sacred  holidays,  in  order  to  allow  time  for  a  system  of 
finance,  which,  however  beneficial  in  its  operation,  is  cer- 
tainly inconsistent  with  decorum  and  public  order."  In 
1824  a  committee  of  the  vestry  of  this  same  synagogue 
recommended  some  improvements  in  the  mode  of  reading 
the  service;  although  the  recommendations  were  acted  on, 
the  evils  complained  of  did  not  abate.  In  1832  the  Ham- 
bro  synagogue  abolished  the  sale  of  the  mitzwot,  but  the 

1Picciotto,    Sketches   of   Anglo-Jewish   History,   p.    302.     London, 
1875. 
3  Ibid.,  p.  326. 


EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  127 

hope  of  such  as  desired  to  see  the  Misheberak  abrogated 
was  not  fulfilled  except  in  the  case  of  the  reform  synagogue 
which  was  founded  in  1841,  as  shall  be  set  forth  shortly. 

There  had  been  agitations  for  reforms  in  Manchester 
which  led  to  the  introduction  of  preaching  in  the  vernac- 
ular in  this  congregation  in  1838.1 

This  desire  for  reform  in  England  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  Judaism  here,  as  elsewhere,  had  fallen  out  of  touch 
with  many,  to  whom  the  services  in  the  synagogue  seemed 
disorderly  and  unedifying.  At  this  time  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese  congregation  had  no  Haham,  as  the  spiritual 
chief  of  this  community  was  designated;  no  successor  had 
been  elected  to  H.  H.  Meldola,  who  had  died  in  1828 ;  his 
son,  David  Meldola,  was  appointed  chief  of  the  Beth  Din; 
the  chief  rabbi  of  the  German  community  was  Solomon 
Hirschel,  a  typical  rabbi  of  the  old  school.  He  had  occupied 
the  position  since  1802. 2  He  preached  twice  a  year  in 
Yiddish,  on  the  Sabbath  before  the  Feast  of  Passover  and 
on  the  Sabbath  of  the  Penitential  season,  expounding  the 
laws  for  the  holidays.  Both  these  men  did  all  in  their 
power  to  prevent  the  successful  outcome  of  the  active 
efforts  for  reform  which,  beginning  with  the  petition  of 
December  4,  1836,  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  reform 
congregation.  This  petition  called  forth  a  counter-petition 
from  forty-five  Tehidim,  as  the  members  of  the  congrega- 
tion are  termed  technically,  on  December  13,  protesting 
against  any  reforms.  The  elders,  and  in  fact  the  majority 
of  the  congregation,  being  in  sympathy  with  the  framers  of 
the  counter-petition,  the  memorial  of  the  members  who  ad- 
vocated the  alterations  met  with  little  sympathy,  although 
the  elders,  in  the  resolution  which  they  passed  discoun- 
tenancing reform,  credited  them  with  purity  of  motive  and 

1  Jost,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  X,  Part  II,  p.  69. 
2H.  Adler,  The  Chief  Rabbis  of  England,  in  Papers  read  at  the 
Anglo- Jewish  Historical  Exhibition,  1887,  p.  287.     London,  1888. 


128      THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

intention.  The  same  cry  as  is  always  raised  in  similar  cir- 
cumstances was  emitted  also  here ;  it  was  urged  that  such 
changes  would  split  Judaism  into  sects ;  this  argument  car- 
ried especial  weight  in  England,  for  there,  as  everywhere, 
the  Jews  are  affected  by  their  surroundings,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  conformity  to  an  established  church  which  repre- 
sents the  prevailing  religious  attitude  in  England  reacted 
and  reacts  without  a  doubt  upon  the  Jews,  and  for  that 
reason  it  has  been  so  difficult  for  reform  to  gain  a  foothold 
in  Anglo-Judaism.  The  petition  of  the  reformers,  how- 
ever, had  the  effect  of  causing  the  elders  to  take  steps  to 
introduce  better  order  into  the  services. 1 

But  the  wheels  of  progress  could  not  be  stopped  by  such 
obstacles  nor  were  the  reformers  to  be  satisfied  with  such 
slight  measures.  Even  the  advocates  of  the  established 
order  understood  this,  and  the  next  step  in  the  campaign 
was  taken  by  some  very  orthodox  members  who,  in  order 
to  meet  any  further  agitation  for  reform,  organized  a 
society  which  they  called  "Shomere  Mishmeret  Akodesh," 
and  defined  as  a  "society  for  supporting  and  upholding 
the  Jewish  religion  as  handed  down  to  us  by  our  revered 
ancestors  and  to  prevent  innovations  or  changes  in  any  of 
its  recognized  forms  and  customs,  unless  sanctioned  by 
the  recognized  authorities. ' ' 2  The.  elders  of  the  synagogue 
evinced  their  impartiality  by  urging  that  this  society  be 
dissolved,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unnecessary  and  would 
only  tend  to  promote  disunion. 

The  reformers  petitioned  the  elders  again  in  1839 ;  as 
before  they  set  forth  the  necessity  for  changes  in  the 
service  and  urged  their  claim  for  consideration.  The 
points  on  which  they  laid  particular  stress  were,  the  dimin- 
ution of  the  prayers,  a  more  convenient  hour  of  service  on 
Sabbaths  and  holidays,  English  sermons,  a  choir,  and  the 

1Picciotto,  Sketches  of  Anglo-Jewish  History,  p.  371. 
2  Gaster,  History  of  the  Ancient  Synagogue  of  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese Jews,  p.  170. 


KEFORM  IN  ENGLAND  129 

abolition  of  the  observance  of  the  second  day  of  the  holi- 
days. This  petition  met  the  same  fate  as  its  predecessors; 
it  was  disregarded.  The  reformers  now  took  a  more  decided 
step.  Not  wishing  to  secede  from  the  congregation  they 
requested  the  elders  to  grant  them  permission  to  erect  a 
branch  synagogue  in  the  West  End  of  London  in  the 
vicinity  of  their  homes,  in  which  they  might  introduce  the 
desired  changes  while  the  mother  synagogue  continued 
along  traditional  lines.  This  well-intentioned  plan,  where- 
by an  absolute  break  might  have  been  avoided,  was  re- 
jected by  the  elders,  because  it  involved  an  infraction  of 
the  first  ascamah  or  rule  of  the  congregation,  which  for- 
bade, under  pain  of  excommunication,  the  establishing  of 
any  house  of  prayer,  or  the  holding  of  any  divine  service 
not  of  a  domestic  nature,  within  a  radius  of  four  miles  of 
the  synagogue. x  Nothing  remained  now  for  those  desir- 
ing reforms  but  to  organize  a  new  congregation,  which  they 
did,  in  connection  with  some  members  of  the  German  com- 
munity who  sympathized  with  their  views.  At  a  meeting 
held  on  April  15  ,1840,  by  twenty-four  gentlemen,  eighteen 
of  whom  were  Sephardim  and  six  Ashkenazim,  a  reform 
congregation  was  organized.  The  reasons  for  doing  so 
were  set  forth  by  the  founders  in  the  following  declaration : 
"  We,  the  undersigned,  regarding  public  worship  as  highly 
conducive  to  the  interests  of  religion,  consider  it  a  matter 
of  deep  regret  that  it  is  not  more  frequently  attended  by 
members  of  our  religious  persuasion.  We  are  perfectly 
sure  that  this  circumstance  is  not  owing  to  any  want  of 
conviction  of  the  fundamental  truths  of  our  religion,  but 
ascribe  it  to  the  distance  of  the  existing  synagogues  from 
our  place  of  residence,  to  the  length  and  imperfections  of 
the  order  of  service, 2  to  the  inconvenient  hours  at  which  it 

faster,  History  of  the  Ancient  Synagogue  of  Spanish  and  Portu- 
guese Jews,  p.  17. 

2  For  a  description  of  the  sorry  state  of  public  worship  in  England 
at  this  time  see  Prof.  D.  W.  Marks'  letter  called  forth  by  the  death 
of  his  friend,  Sir  John  Simon,   one  of  the  most  active  of  the  re- 
formers of  1842.     Jewish  Chronicle,  July  9,  1897,  7. 
9 


130  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

is  appointed,  and  to  the  absence  of  religious  instruction  in 
our  synagogue.  To  these  evils  we  believe  that  a  remedy 
may  be  applied  by  the  establishment  of  a  synagogue  at  the 
western  part  of  the  metropolis,  where  a  revised  service  may 
be  performed  at  hours  more  suited  to  our  habits  and  in  a 
manner  more  calculated  to  inspire  feelings  of  devotion, 
where  religious  instruction  may  be  afforded  by  competent 
persons,  and  where,  to  effect  these  purposes,  Jews  generally 
may  form  a  united  congregation  under  the  denomination 
of  British  Jews."  To  give  the  movement  definite  shape, 
the  following  resolutions  were  adopted: 

"That  it  is  expedient  to  establish  a  synagogue  in  the 
western  part  of  the  metropolis  and  that  it  be  designated 
the  West  London  Synagogue  of  British  Jews." 

"That  a  revised  service  be  there  performed  in  the  He- 
brew language  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the 
Jewish  religion,  and  in  a  manner  best  calculated  to  excite 
feelings  of  devotion,  and  that  religious  discourses  be  de- 
livered in  the  English  language." 

In  the  Introduction  *  to  the  prayer-book,  adopted  some- 
what later  by  the  newly-formed  congregation,  the  following 
interesting  statement  is  made  in  reference  to  the  designa- 
tion "British  Jews"  used  in  the  address  and  resolution 
just  quoted  and  in  the  title  adopted  by  the  congregation, 
namely,  "The  West  London  Synagogue  of  British  Jews;" 
"the  differences  which  formerly  existed  between  the 
Portuguese  and  German  Jewish  congregations,  and  which 
caused  them  to  consider  each  other  as  half  aliens  in  re- 
ligious matters,  have  happily,  by  the  progress  of  liberal 
sentiments,  been  removed,  in  as  far  as  they  obstructed  that 
brotherly  feeling  which  the  unity  of  our  religious  system 
requires;  and  the  efforts  of  our  newly-established  congre- 
gation have  been  directed,  we  hope  successfully,  to  the 
obliteration  of  every  vestige  of  that  useless  and  hurtful 
separation.  We  have  discarded  the  names  indicating  a 

1  P.  xv. 


EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  131 

connection  between  us,  natives  of  Great  Britain  professing 
the  Jewish  religion,  and  the  countries  from  which  our 
ancestors  immigrated,  and  we  have  adopted  for  our  place 
of  worship  the  sufficiently  explicit  designation  of  'West 
London  Synagogue  of  British  Jews. '  In  making  this  state- 
ment, it  is  expedient  to  notice  that  the  term  'British  Jews' 
has  been  chosen  with  a  view  only  to  efface  the  distinction 
now  existing  between  the  German  and  Portuguese  Jews, 
and  not  in  any  way  to  constitute  a  new  distinction,  in  a 
religious  point  of  view,  between  the  Jews  of  Great  Britain 
and  those  of  any  other  country. ' ' 

The  inclusion  of  the  abolition  of  the  second  day  of  the 
holidays  among  the  desired  reforms  indicates  that  one  of 
the  primary  causes  of  reform  in  Judaism  was  life  itself. 
The  life  of  the  Jews  in  the  new  time  when  they  were  par- 
ticipating in  the  activities  of  the  world  was  altogether 
different  from  what  it  had  been  when  they  were  a  ghetto- 
community.  The  orthodox  element  who  were  arrayed 
against  this  reform  had  no  other  argument  to  offer  than 
that  it  was  handed  down  by  tradition;  they  refused  to 
recognize  the  fact  that  originally  only  one  day  had  been 
observed,  and  that  the  keeping  of  the  second  day  as  a 
sacred  day  was  in  itself  an  innovation  of  a  later  time ;  the 
reformers,  on  the  other  hand,  claimed  that  the  exigencies 
of  life  in  the  modern  time  demanded  the  abolition  of  the 
second  day,  that  there  was  no  warrant  or  sufficient  reason 
for  continuing  its  observance,  that  if  the  requirement  of 
one  age  justified  its  institution,  the  necessities  of  the  pres- 
ent justified  no  less  its  abrogation.  Religious  institutions 
must  shape  themselves  according  to  the  needs  of  the  age,  if 
they  are  to  continue  as  living  forces  and  not  as  dead  let- 
ters. 

The  movement  to  form  the  new  congregation  agitated  the 
community  greatly.  While  it  was  taking  shape  the  chief 
rabbi  of  the  German  community,  Solomon  Hirschel,  and 
David  Meldola,  chief  of  the  Beth  Din  of  the  Spanish  and 


132  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Portuguese  congregation,  addressed  a  lengthy  communica- 
tion to  the  London  Committee  of  Deputies  of  British  Jews 
and  to  the  various  congregations,  calling  their  attention  to 
the  reports  that  such  a  congregation  was  being  formed,  and 
urging  them  to  use  all  their  influence  to  prevent  it.  They 
contended  that  this  movement,  if  successful,  would  disturb 
the  peace  of  the  community  and  introduce  the  evil  of 
schism ;  they  pleaded  for  the  observance  of  the  law  which 
had  been  the  main  bulwark  and  protection  of  Israel  during 
twenty  centuries:  "Let  us  hesitate  a  long  while  ere  we 
sanction  any  innovation,  ere  we  tear  down  rashly  any  por- 
tion of  the  'fence  of  the  law'  which  is  sanctified  by  the 
reverence  of  centuries  and  still  more  by  the  authority  of 
those  who  created  it. ' '  Sincere  the  two  ecclesiastical  chiefs 
undoubtedly  were,  but  they  closed  their  eyes  to  the  fact 
that  the  people  had  begun  to  disregard  the  law,  that  the 
people  had  broken  down  "the  fence"  whereof  they  wrote 
so  earnestly  and  pathetically.  And  when  the  people  have 
taken  such  a  step,  when  life  has  begun  to  make  inroads,  no 
legal  or  ecclesiastical  provision,  prohibition,  or  fiat  will 
prove  of  much  avail.  The  constituted  authorities  of  the 
synagogue  in  England,  as  had  been  the  case  in  Germany, 
were  blind  to  the  signs  of  the  times.  The  onrushing  waves 
of  the  ocean  of  life  swept  away  many  of  the  pickets  of  the 
fence  of  the  law ;  this  they  would  not  or  could  not  see ;  they 
attributed  the  reforms  to  willful  presumption,  whereas  they 
were  really  the  result  of  the  new  currents  of  life  that  were 
flowing  through  the  Jewish  community. 

The  rabbinical  address  was  received  sympathetically  by 
the  existing  congregations  with  the  exception  of  the  West- 
ern Synagogue  1  which  refused  to  receive  the  communica- 
tion ;  one  of  them,  for  example,  the  New  Synagogue,  passed 
a  resolution  declaring  any  member  of  a  "place  of  worship 
which  does  not  conform  in  religious  matters  to  the  ecclesias- 

^'The  History  of  the  Central  Synagogue,"  by  Michael  Adler, 
Jewish  Chronicle,  April  14,  1905,  p.  16. 


REFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  133 

tical  authorities  (agreeably  with  Law  1  and  2  of  the 
Deputies)  is  not  eligible  to  the  office  of  deputy  of  this  syna- 
gogue. l 

The  Bevis  Marks  congregation  put  forth  a  final  attempt 
to  stop  the  reformers  from  carrying  out  their  plan  by  the 
suggestion  that  a  branch  synagogue  be  erected  in  the  West 
End  of  the  city  where  most  of  the  reformers  lived,  but  that 
the  seryice  in  this  branch  synagogue  be  exactly  like  that  in 
the  mother  synagogue.  Naturally,  this  did  not  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  case,  and  the  proposal  was  not  urged. 
The  reformers  remained  insistent  and  continued  perfecting 
their  plans  for  the  new  congregation.  Many  meetings 
were  held  by  both  sides.  Partisan  passions  were  aroused 
and  bitter  feelings  engendered.  On  June  2,  1841,  the  Bevis 
Marks  congregation  called  upon  the  other  congregations  of 
the  city  to  join  with  them  in  the  effort  to  prevent  such  a 
flagrant  violation  of  the  traditional  rules  and  laws  of  the 
faith  as  the  program  of  the  new  congregation  intended. 2 
Even  this  did  not  deter  the  founders  of  the  new  congrega- 
tion from  continuing  in  the  work  which  they  had  under- 
taken. On  August  24  they  addressed  a  communication  to 
the  elders  of  the  Bevis  Marks  synagogue,  wherein  they 
announced  the  fact  that  they  intended  to  open  a  new  place 
of  worship  and  to  introduce  innovations  and  changes  in  the 
ritual ;  they  enumerated  these  as  follows : 3  the  service  was 
not  to  exceed  two  hours  and  a  half;  to  make  this  possible 
the  prayers  had  to  be  abridged ;  they  had  therefore  revised 
the  prayers ;  there  was  to  be  preaching  in  the  vernacular ; 
the  offerings  were  to  be  abolished  except  on  the  three  high 
festivals  when  voluntary  offerings  4  could  be  made  upon 

1  Extract    from  minute-book   of   the   New   Synagogue,   meeting   of 
May  19,  1841,  Jewish  Chronicle,  May  13,  1905,  p.  28. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  V,  p.  732. 

3  Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  III,  167.     Supplement  to 
Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  29,  1892,  p.  18. 

*It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  Bevis  Marks  congregation 
abolished  in  1885  the  announcement  of  the  offerings  because  of  the 


134  THE  EEFO&M  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  return  of  the  scroll  of  the  law  to  the  ark;  the  second 
days  of  the  holidays  were  to  be  abolished  for  ' '  it  is  not  the 
intention  of  the  body  of  which  we  form  a  part  to  recog- 
nize as  sacred  days  those  which  are  not  ordained  as  such 
in  Scripture;  and  consequently  they  have  appointed  the 
service  for  Holy  Convocations  to  be  read  on  days  only  thus 
designated. ' ' *  They  disclaimed,  however,  all  desire  to 
produce  a  schism  in  the  community  and  declared  their 
willingness  and  their  purpose  to  advance  the  interests  of 
the  mother  congregation  as  they  had  hitherto.  It  was  in 
a  truly  religious  spirit  that  they  wrote  that  these  views 
have  been  carried  into  effect,  not  with  any  desire  to  sepa- 
rate ' l  but  through  a  sincere  conviction  that  substantial  im- 
provements in  the  public  worship  are  essential  to  the  weal 
of  our  sacred  religion,  and  that  they  will  be  the  means  of 
handing  down  to  our  children  and  our  children's  children 
our  holy  faith  in  all  its  purity  and  integrity.  Indeed,  we 
are  firmly  convinced  that  their  tendency  will  be  to  arrest 
and  prevent  secession  from  Judaism,  an  overwhelming  evil 
which  has  at  various  times  spread  among  many  of  the  most 
respectable  families  of  our  community.  Most  fervently  do 
we  cherish  the  hope  that  the  effect  of  these  improvements 
will  be  to  inspire  a  deeper  interest  in  and  a  stronger  feel- 
ing toward  our  holy  religion,  and  that  their  influence  on  the 

unseemly  indecorum  connected  therewith.  In  1904  the  elders  re- 
solved to  re-introduce  these  announcements  on  financial  grounds; 
they  held  that  the  financial  straits  of  the  congregation  were  such  that 
the  money  which  members  would  be  induced  to  offer  if  public  an- 
nouncement thereof  were  made  at  the  services  would  aid  materially 
in  swelling  a  depleted  treasury.  The  reactionary  measure  was  carried 
by  a  majority  of  one,  and  called  forth  more  than  one  strong  protest. 
Jewish  Chronicle,  Feb.  19,  1904,  p.  6,  26;  Feb.  26,  p.  6. 

1  See  defense  of  the  congregation 's  action  in  this  matter  of  the 
second  days  of  the  festivals  by  B.  E.  (Benjamin  Elkin),  Voice  of 
Jacob,  IV  (1844),  30-31;  to  this  is  appended  an  answer  by  the  editor 
defending  the  traditional  view;  for  a  reply  to  this,  see  ibid.,  59;  cf. 
also  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  "Holy  Convocations,  or  Eeasons  for 
the  Observance  of  the  \yip  mta  DT."  London,  1844. 


EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  135 

minds  of  the  youth  of  either  sex  will  be  calculated  to 
restrain  them  from  wavering  in  their  faith  or  contemplat- 
ing for  a  moment  the  fearful  step  of  forsaking  their  re- 
ligion, so  that  henceforth  no  Israelite  born  may  cease  to 
exclaim,  'Hear,  0  Israel,  the  Lord  is  our  God,  the  Lord  is 
One.'  We  contemplate  encountering  considerable  differ- 
ence of  opinion,  and  even  a  strong  prejudice  against  our 
proceedings,  but  we  venture  to  hope  that  on  further  con- 
sideration, our  motives  and  intentions  will  be  duly  appre- 
ciated and  that  those  kindly  feelings,  which  ought  to  exist 
between  every  community  of  Jews,  will  be  maintained  be- 
tween the  congregation  which  you  represent  and  the  small 
body  whose  views  we  have  endeavored  to  explain. " 

The  Elders  made  no  acknowledgment  of  this  communica- 
tion, but  adopted  a  resolution  denouncing  the  movement 
to  open  a  new  synagogue,  and  declaring  the  action  of  the 
promoters  of  the  plan  schismatic;  but  matters  had  gone 
too  far  and  the  denunciation  proved  futile.  Unfortunate- 
ly, the  affair  did  not  stop  with  verbal  denunciation  and 
recrimination.  As  at  Hamburg  the  ecclesiastical  heads  of 
the  existing  congregations  issued  a  Caution  *  against  the 
new  congregation  and  its  prayer-book,  dated  the  ninth  of 
Marheshvan,  5602  (October  24,  1841),  in  which  they  said, 
* i  when  we  saw  this  great  evil  we  arose  and  supplicated  the 
help  of  God  to  remove  this  stumbling-block  from  the  path 
of  our  people,  our  brethren  of  the  House  of  Israel  .... 
we  hereby  admonish  every  person  professing  the  faith  of 
Israel  and  having  the  fear  of  God  in  his  heart  that  he  do 
not  use  or  in  any  manner  recognize  the  said  book  of  prayer 
because  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  our  Holy  Law  and  who- 
ever will  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  prayer  will  be  accounted 
sinful. ' '  This  Caution  was'  sent  to  all  the  congregations 
in  England ;  the  congregations  of  Liverpool  and  Manchester 
disapproved  of  it  and  returned  it,  while  the  Plymouth  con- 

1  Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  36,  Nov.  26,  1841. 


136  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

gregation  burnt  it. 1  Evidently  the  terrors  of  ecclesiastical 
excommunication  had  become  a  thing  of  the  past.  In 
truth  there  were  but  few  changes  in  essential  teachings  if 
any  in  the  prayerbook  which  the  new  congregation  issued 
in  August  with  the  title  * '  Forms  of  Prayer  used  in  the  West 
London  Synagogue  of  British  Jews,"  and  which  was  pre- 
pared by  a  committee  consisting  of  Rev.  D.  W.  Marks, 
Francis  H.  Goldsmid,  Abraham  Mocatta,  and  Moses 
Mocatta.  In  the  introduction  to  the  book  the  editors,  re- 
ferring to  the  recent  studies  of  Jewish  scholars,  explained 
that  the  ritual  of  the  synagogue  represents  a  growth  and 
drew  from  this  fact  the  conclusion  of  the  right  and  the 
necessity  of  producing  a  book  of  prayers  that  would  appeal 
to  their  generation  or  as  they  put  it,  '  *  it  being  thus  evident 
that  time  has  exerted  its  influence  on  these  prayers,  it  is 
but  meet  that  the  exigencies  of  the  time  should  again  be 
consulted,  when  we  have  arrived  at  the  conviction  that  the 
house  of  prayer  does  not  exercise  the  salutary  influence 
over  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  congregants  which  it  is 
intended  and  capable  to  exert.  History  bears  us  out  in  the 
assumption,  that  it  becomes  a  congregation  of  Israelites  to 
adapt  the  ritual  to  the  wants  of  its  members ;  and  it  must 
be  universally  admitted  that  the  present  mode  of  worship 
fails  to  call  forth  the  devotion,  so  essential  to  the  religious 
improvement  of  the  people."  The  changes  consisted  most- 
ly in  abbreviations  and  eliminations  whereby  the  service 
was  shortened;  such  sections  as  thefDIPD  1HPK,  pp'5l»  HB2, 
fPllS  D1P*1,  etc.,  were  omitted ;  the  Amidah  of  the  Mussaf 
service  was  shortened  and  contained  only  thejDIDlin  PVD, 
the  epitome  of  the  benedictions.  The  most  significant 
change  possibly  was  the  rendering  of  the  Aramaic  portions 
notably  the  Qaddish  prayer  into  Hebrew.  A  few  original 
prayers  for  special  occasions  were  included.  Petitions  for 
the  restoration  of  the  sacrificial  cult  in  the  Temple  of  Jeru- 

1  Jost,   Geschichte   des  Judenthums  und  seiner   SeTcten,   III,   373 ; 
Israel-it  des  neuneehnten  JdhrTiunderts,  III,  57. 


EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  137 

salem  were  eliminated  although  the  prayers  for  the  return 
to  Zion  and  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  were  retained.  The 
editors  of  the  book  were  quite  right  when  they  asserted 
that  the  service  they  had  adopted  was  altogether  based  on 
the  existing  ritual  with  the  exception  of  the  few  slight 
changes  mentioned,  and  the  bull  of  excommunication  of 
the  ecclesiastical  authorities  was  therefore  an  extreme  step 
even  from  the  standpoint  of  tradition. 

The  new  congregation  dedicated  its  synagogue  in  Burton 
Street,  on  January  27,  1842.  David  W.  Marks,  who  had 
been  elected  secretary  of  the  congregation,  delivered  the 
sermon ;  Mr.  Marks  had  been  secretary  and  Reader  of  the 
Law  of  the  congregation  in  Liverpool.  In  looking  about 
for  a  leader  the  founders  of  the  reform  congregation  de- 
cided upon  Mr.  Marks,  who  had  acquired  a  reputation  as  an 
able  and  eloquent  preacher.  The  choice  was  fortunate  in- 
deed, as  his  distinguished  career  has  proved.  In  his 
dedicatory  sermon  Mr.  Marks  defended  the  right  of  the 
congregation  to  introduce  reforms,  and  defined  the  position 
of  the  congregation  towards  the  Talmud,  denying  the 
authority  of  the  oral  Law  and  accepting  the  Bible  only  as 
authoritative : x  he  declared  that  it  was  not  the  purpose  of 

1  The  preacher  7s  words  on  this  all-important  subject  were :  ' '  We 
must,  as  our  conviction  urges  us,  solemnly  deny  that  a  belief  in  the 
divinity  of  the  traditions  written  in  the  Mishnah  and  the  Jerusalem 
and  Babylonian  Talmuds,  is  of  equal  obligation  to  the  Israelite, 
with  the  faith  in  the  divinity  of  the  Law  of  Moses.  We  know  that 
these  books  are  human  compositions;  and  though  we  are  content  to 
accept  with  reverence  from  our  post-Biblical  ancestors  advice  and 
instruction,  we  cannot  unconditionally  accept  their  laws.  For 
Israelites  there  is  but  one  immutable  law,  the  sacred  volume  of  the 
scriptures,  commanded  by  God  to  be  written  down  for  the  unerring 
guidance  of  his  people  until  the  end  of  time. ' '  The  authority  of  the 
oral  law  was  one  of  the  chief  points  of  difference  between  the 
traditionalists  and  the  reformers.  A  pamphlet  appeared  taking  the 
opposite  view  to  that  advocated  by  Mr.  Marks;  this  pamphlet  was 
entitled  "Is  there  an  Oral  Law  of  Divine  Origin  and  Therefore 
Binding  upon  the  Jews?"  by  One  of  Themselves;  see  also  article 


138  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  congregation  to  weaken  their  inherited  faith,  but  to 
strengthen  those  great  principles  of  the  Law  that  their  fore- 
fathers had  heard  at  Sinai ;  they  did  not  intend  to  abolish 
the  old  simply  because  it  was  old,  nor  yet  to  introduce  the 
new  merely  because  it  was  new ;  their  only  guide  was  to  be 
the  call  of  truth  and  the  service  of  God  in  a  manner  that 
would  satisfy  the  needs  of  their  generation. 1 

Even  before  the  Caution  against  the  prayer-book  was 
published,  a  meeting  had  been  held  on  September  9,  1841, 
at  the  residence  of  the  Chief  Kabbi  Solomon  Hirschel, 
which  was  attended  by  the  wardens  and  honorary  officers 
of  the  different  synagogues  and  by  the  members  of  the 
London  Committee  of  Deputies  of  British  Jews;  at  this 
meeting  a  declaration  was  read  and  approved  as  follows: 
"  Information  having  reached  me  from  which  it  appears 
that  certain  persons  calling  themselves  British  Jews,  pub- 
licly and  in  their  published  Book  of  Prayer,  reject  the 
Oral  Law,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  declare  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  Laws  and  Statutes  held  sacred  by  the  whole 
House  of  Israel,  any  person  or  persons  publicly  declaring 
that  he  or  they  reject  and  do  not  believe  in  the  authority  of 
the  Oral  Law  cannot  be  permitted  to  have  any  communion 
with  us  Israelites  in  any  religious  rite  or  sacred  act;  I 
therefore  earnestly  entreat  and  exhort  all  God-fearing 
Jews,  especially  parents,  to  caution  and  instruct  all  per- 
sons belonging  to  our  Faith  that  the}*-  be  careful  to  attend 

signed  A.  B.  (Abraham  Benisch)  in  Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  18  (March  18, 
1842),  entitled  "In  What  Relation  do  those  who  deny  the  Oral  Law 
stand  to  those  who  believe  in  it  with  respect  to  the  keeping  of  the 
Festivals?"  An  answer  to  this  appeared  in  pamphlet  form  shortly 
thereafter,  entitled  "Is  the  Oral  Law  of  Divine  Origin  and  there- 
fore Binding  upon  the  Jews?  the  advocacy  of  this  Question  Con- 
tested," by  a  Member  of  the  Community  (John  Simon).  Another 
pamphlet  in  defense  of  the  reformers  appeared  in  October,  1842: 
' '  The  Oral  Law  and  Its  Defenders, ' '  A  Review  by  a  Scripturalist. 

*For  a  caustic  criticism  of  this  sermon  see  Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  90 
(March  4,  1842). 


REFORM  IN  ENGLAND  139 

to  this  Declaration  and  that  they  be  not  induced  to  depart 
from  our  Holy  Laws."  This  was  signed  by  S.  Hirschel, 
Chief  Rabbi,  and  was  accompanied  by  the  indorsement  of 
the  ministers  of  the  Portuguese  congregation  in  these 
words:  "We,  the  undersigned,  fully  concurring  in  the 
foregoing  Doctrines,  as  set  forth  by  the  Reverend  Solomon 
Hirschel,  certify  such  our  concurrence  under  our  hands 
this  Twenty-Fourth  of  Elul,  5601  A.  M. 

David  Meldola, * 

A.  Haliva, 

J.  Levy, 

A.  Levy, 

A.  L.  Barnet." 

Although  written  in  Elul  (September)  this  document 
was  not  promulgated  till  the  following  January,  the  reason 
being  given  in  these  further  words  accompanying  it,  "The 
promulgation  of  the  above  Declaration  has  been  delayed 
in  the  hope 2  that  there  would  have  been  no  necessity  to  give 
it  publicity;  circumstances,  however,  now  require  that  it 
should  no  longer  be  withheld  from  the  community ; ' '  dated 
the  9th  of  Sebat,  5602  (January  22,  1842).  The  circum- 
stances referred  to  were  the  forthcoming  dedication  of  the 
synagogue  of  the  reform  congregation  and  its  outspoken 
attitude  on  the  question  of  authority  as  given  voice  to  a 
few  days  later  in  the  inaugural  sermon  of  its  minister. 

On  January  19,  1842,  the  members  of  the  new  congre- 
gation addressed  a  letter  to  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
congregation  asking  that  their  names  be  stricken  from  the 
list  of  members  of  the  old  congregation ; 3  they  had  de- 

1  Two  years  later  this  rabbi  preached  a  sermon  (on  Sabbath 
T'shubah,  1844)  in  which  he  deplored  the  secession  of  the  members 
of  the  West  London  Synagogue  from  the  mother  congregation,  as  well 
as  the  causes  that  led  to  it,  and  earnestly  exhorted  all  parties  to  a 
conciliatory  policy.  Voice  of  Jacob,  IV  (1844),  39. 

a  Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  77  (Feb.  4,  1842). 

•  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VI,  263. 


140  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

layed  taking  this  step  in  the  hope  that  some  method  of 
reconciliation  would  be  found  and  that  in  time  reforms 
would  be  introduced  in  the  mother  congregation.  The 
break  was  now  complete.  Brother  was  arrayed  against 
brother,  whilom  friend  against  friend.  The  traditional- 
ists believed  that  the  strength  and  .salvation  of  Judaism 
depended  on  strict  conformity  in  practice  and  belief  to 
what  had  been  handed  down  from  the  past,  the  reformers 
believed  no  less  strongly  in  the  right  of  private  judgment 
in  religious  as  in  all  other  matters;  each  party  held  to  its 
conviction  with  the  tenacity  typical  of  the  English  char- 
acter. 

The  letter  of  January  19  resulted  in  drastic  action  on 
the  part  of  the  old  congregation.  The  matter  was  con- 
sidered at  several  meetings  and  finally  it  was  resolved  that 
the  signers  of  that  letter  "had  forfeited  all  claims  to  the 
rights  and  immunities  which  they  enjoyed  as  members  of 
our  community,  that  the  grants  made  to  them  of  seats  in 
our  synagogue  are  rescinded  and  annulled.  They  are  also 
declared  ineligible  to  act  in  any  religious  office  or  to  per- 
form a  Mitzvah  of  any  kind  in  the  congregation. 1  Neither 
shall  any  gift  or  offering  be  accepted  from  them,  or  in 
respect  of  them,  in  any  way  or  under  any  form  whatever, 
during  the  time  they  remain  in  contumacy;  they  shall  not 
be  allowed  burial  in  the  camera  of  our  Beth  Haim  nor 
receive  any  of  the  religious  rites  and  ceremonies  paid  to 
departed  members  of  our  communion."2  Thus  was  the 

1  On  this  point  see  Voice  of  Jacob,  IV,  100,  111. 

2  This  refusal  of  the  Elders  to  permit  the  burial  of  the  members 
of  the  congregation  by  the  side  of  their  beloved  was  a  striking  in- 
stance of  religious  bigotry;  no  words  are  strong  enough  to  condemn 
such  acts  that  have  been  performed  so   frequently  in  the  name  of 
religion  among  all  sects.     The  new   congregation  was   compelled  to 
secure  a  burial  ground  of  its  own.     It  was  two  years  and  a  half 
before   it   purchased   its   cemetery   at   Balls   Pond.     In    the   interval 
Mrs.  Horatio  J.  Montefiore,  the  wife  of  one  of  the  organizers  of  the 
new  congregation,  died.     The  application  to  the  Elders  of  the  Spanish 


REFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  141 

Herem  or  edict  of  excommunication  formally  and  solemnly 
pronounced  against  the  reformers.  On  December  14,  1845, 
a  committee  was  appointed  to  consult  with  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  upon  the  validity  of  this  edict  of  excommunica- 
tion ;  for  the  friends  and  relatives  of  the  excommunicated, 
who  had  remained  faithful  members  of  the  mother  con- 
gregation were  disquieted  because  of  the  religious  disabil- 
ities under  which  the  seceders  were  laboring;  besides,  the 
passing  of  time  had  somewhat  softened  the  bitter  feelings 
aroused  at  the  time  of  the  incident.  After  lengthy  delib- 
erations and  protracted  consideration  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities  lifted  the  ban  from  the  reformers  on  March  9, 
1849. x 

The  organization  of  the  new  congregation  led  to  other 
serious  practical  consequences.  On  February  2,  1842,  the 
reform  congregation,  through  a  committee  named  for  that 
purpose,  and  consisting  of  Francis  H.  Goldsmid,  Moses 
Mocatta,  and  John  Simon, 2  sent  official  notice  to  the  Board 
of  Deputies  of  British  Jews,  the  president  of  which  was 
Sir  Moses  Montefiore  (the  most  prominent  Jew  in  England 

and  Portuguese  Synagogue  to  permit  her  burial  in  their  cemetery 
was  refused.  The  new  congregation  entered  immediately  into  an 
arrangement  with  the  Maiden  Lane  Synagogue  whereby,  upon  payment 
of  fifty  pounds  per  annum,  they  would  be  permitted  to  bury  their 
dead  in  the  cemetery  of  that  congregation  and  have  their  minister 
officiate  at  the  funeral.  This  was  the  only  death  in  the  congregation 
before  the  cemetery  at  Balls  Pond  was  acquired.  Voice  of  Jacob, 
I,  101  (March  11,  1842). 

1  For  a  full  account  of  the  successive  steps  taken  in  the  matter,  see 
Picciotto,  Sketches  of  Anglo-Jewish  History,  p.   383.     The  passing 
of  the  years  has  witnessed  the  disappearance  of  most  of  the  acrimony 
aroused  in  the  formation  period;  for  years  the  reform  congregation 
has  had  representation   in   the   very  Board   of   Deputies   of   British 
Jews  which  was  so  bitter  in  its  opposition  at  the  start.     Strange  to 
say,  the  reform  congregation  in  1903  was  almost  as  decided  as  the 
United  Synagogue  in  the  opposition  to  the  Jewish  Eeligious  Union, 
the  latest  attempt  at  reform  among  English  Jews. 

2  See  Supplement  to  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  29,  1892,  p.  19. 


142  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

and  famous  particularly  because  of  his  great  services  in  con- 
nection with  the  notorious  Damascus  affair  of  1840),  of 
the  existence  of  the  congregation  and  requested  them  to  cer- 
tify that  Mr.  Marks  was  secretary  of  the  synagogue.  This 
was  especially  important  in  order  to  give  validity  and  legal- 
ity to  the  marriages  performed  by  the  minister  of  the  con- 
gregation or,  as  he  was  officially  called,  the  secretary.  Every 
marriage  had  to  be  registered  and  naturally  only  marriages 
registered  by  one  who  was  certified  to  be  the  secretary  of  a 
synagogue  would  have  legal  recognition  and  sanction.  Sir 
Moses  refused  the  request  in  a  reply  dated  February  8,  in 
which  he  stated  that  he  had  referred  the  matter  to  the  eccle- 
siastical authorities  of  the  Board  of  Deputies ;  on  the  follow- 
ing day  he  declared  that  he  did  not  recognize  the  new  organ- 
ization as  a  Jewish  congregation.  The  West  London  Syna- 
gogue, in  its  answer,  dated  February  14,  called  attention  to 
the  facts  that  the  Board  of  Deputies  counted  no  ecclesiasti- 
cal authorities  among  its  number  and  that  every  synagogue 
de  facto  has  the  right  of  existence  in  England  without 
further  ado  or  authority;  hence  they  asked  a  second  time 
to  have  Mr.  Marks  registered  as  secretary  of  a  synagogue 
and  therefore  empowered  to  perform  all  the  acts  of  an 
accredited  head  of  a  congregation.  Sir  Moses  persisted  in 
his  former  declaration  and  maintained  the  position  he  had 
assumed.  The  committee  of  the  West  London  Synagogue 
in  its  reply  deplored  the  fact  that  a  man  of  Sir  Moses'  dis- 
tinguished services  should  so  use  his  position  as  to  cause 
internal  strife  in  the  community;  for  if  the  attitude  of 
the  president  of  the  Board  of  Deputies  would  be  upheld 
it  could  result  in  but  one  of  two  things,  a  contest  before  a 
court  of  law  or  in  Parliament.  They  would  not,  however, 
resort  to  these  extreme  measures  for  the  present  because 
they  wished  to  avoid  the  notoriety  that  would  result  from 
the  public  airing  of  the  internal  strife  in  the  Jewish  com- 
munity; still  they  would  not  hesitate  to  take  one  of  these 
steps  should  any  difficulty  be  encountered  in  the  registra- 


REFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  143 

tion  of  marriages  performed  by  their  minister.  Sir  Moses 
answered  this  pronouncement  by  making  public  the  resolu- 
tions adopted  by  the  committee  of  the  Board  of  Deputies 
on  February  7,  which  declared  that  all  religious,  matters 
were  to  be  referred  to  the  ecclesiastical  chiefs  as  hereto- 
fore ;  this  was  accompanied  by  the  declaration  of  the  eccle- 
siastical authorities  quoted  above  to  the  effect  that  the  new 
organization  was  not  to  be  recognized  as  a  Jewish  congre- 
gation, and  also  by  the  resolution  adopted  by  the  whole 
Board  of  Deputies  on  February  14,  in  which  they  declared 
their  entire  approval  of  Sir  Moses'  course.  Such  couples 
as  desired  to  be  married  by  Mr.  Marks  had  to  be  married 
first  by  the  registrar  to  legalize  the  marriage  which  was 
thereupon  solemnized  by  the  minister  according  to  the  rites 
of  the  religion. 1  In  1845  the  West  London  Synagogue 
appealed  to  the  Government  which  on  its  part  referred  the 
matter  to  the  then  chief  rabbi,  Dr.  Nathan  Marcus  Adler, 
the  successor  of  Solomon  Hirschel  who  had  died  while  the 
controversy  between  the  two  factions  was  still  raging. 2 
How  high  the  feeling  ran  even  at  this  time  may  be  learned 
from  a  remarkable  action  of  Chief  Rabbi  Adler  which  was 
the  occasion  of  the  issuing  of  an  address  by  the  West 
London  Synagogue  on  March  3,  1846,  detailing  the  course 
of  events  since  the  congregation  had  come  into  existence;3 
the  action  referred  to  was  the  refusal  of  the  Chief  Rabbi 
to  permit  the  solemnization  of  a  marriage  between  a 
member  of  the  orthodox  community  and  a  girl  whose  father 
was  affiliated  with  the  reform  congregation,  and  who  her- 
self had  attended  services  there,  unless  the  latter  would 

1  Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  81  ff. 

2  Voice  of  Jacob,  IV,  164. 

'Appeal  of  the  Congregation  of  the  West  London  Synagogue  of 
British  Jews,  to  their  Brother  Israelites  Throughout  the  United 
Kingdom.  The  correspondence  that  passed  between  Francis  H. 
Goldsmid  and  Dr.  Adler  and  the  deposition  of  the  girl  Johanna 
Engel,  formed  the  appendix  to  the  appeal.  Cf.  Ludwig  Philippson's 
opinion  on  the  proceeding.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  181-183. 


144  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

promise  to  live  in  accordance  with  orthodox  practice  and 
never  set  foot  in  the  reform  synagogue. 1 

In  1846  Parliament  passed  the  Religious  Opinions  Re- 
lief Bill  whose  purpose  it  was  to  grant  property  and  other 
rights  to  dissenters;  the  supporters  of  the  West  London 
synagogue  claimed  that  the  effect  of  the  bill  was  to  legalize 
marriages  in  their  place  of  worship  by  its  registration  in  the 
same  manner  as  dissenting  chapels  were  heretofore  regis- 
tered. 2  The  incident  was  closed  by  the  passing  of  an  Act 
of  Parliament,  on  July  29,  1856,  entitled  "An  Act  to 
Amend  the  Provision  of  the  Marriage  and  Registration 
Acts,"  the  twenty-second  section  of  which  makes  special 
m'ention  of  the  West  London  Synagogue  of  British  Jews, 
and  empowers  its  certified  secretary  to  register  marriage 
ceremonies;  the  Bill  also  empowered  the  secretary  of  this 
synagogue  to  certify  to  the  secretaries  of  other  synagogues 
who  would  adopt  the  same  ritual. 3 

Thus  the  congregation  reached  the  haven  of  peace  after 
years  of  trial  and  struggle.  Since  then  it  has  continued 
along  the  lines  first  laid  down,  but  has  not  made  much 
further  headway  in  this  direction;  in  fact,  it  has  become 
quite  as  wedded  to  its  traditions  as  are  the  orthodox  con- 

1  Voice  of  Jacob,  V,  59.     This  incident,  together  with  the  reform 
congregation 's  ' l  appeal, ' '  gave  rise  to  a  heated  controversy  between 
the  two   English  Jewish   newspapers,   The  Voice  of  Jacob  and   The 
Jewish  Chronicle,  the  former  supporting  the  chief  rabbi,  the  latter 
the  reformers. 

2  Voice  of  Jacob,  V,  193.     Bearing  closely  upon  this  subject  is  the 
following  official  notice:     The  West  London  Synagogue  of  British 
Jews,   situated   in  Burton   St.,   Burton   Crescent,   in   the   parish   and 
district  of  St.  Pancras  in  the  county  of  Middlesex,  being  a  building 
certified,  according  to  law,  as  a  place  of  religious  worship,  was  on  the 
4th  day  of  December,  1846,  duly  registered  for  solemnizing  marriages 
therein  pursuant  to  the  Act  of  6th  and  7th  Wm.,  Cap.  85.     Witness 
my  hand  and  seal  this  5th  day  of  December,  1846.     (Signed)  Joseph 
Ivimey,  Superintendent  Eegistrar.     Voice  of  Jacob,  VI,  52. 

8  The  Statutes  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland;  19  and  20 
Viet.  1856,  674. 


EEFOEM  IN  ENGLAND  145 

legations  to  theirs.  The  confirmation  ceremony  was  in- 
troduced at  the  very  beginning, *  and  on  Sept.  26,  1859, 
an  organ  was  placed  in  the  second  house  of  worship  of  the 
congregation  in  Margaret  Street,  which  had  been  dedicated 
in  1849.  Reform  has  made  comparatively  little  progress 
in  England,  although  preaching  in  the  vernacular  and  the 
choir  have  been  generally  introduced ;  greater  decorum,  too, 
marks  the  services  of  the  constituent  congregations  of  the 
United  Synagogue  than  was  the  case  in  the  days  when  the 
reform  congregation  was  organized. 2  Only  two  other  re- 
form congregations  have  been  established,  namely  in  Man- 
chester and  Bradford.  On  Feb.  22,  1890,  the  Rev.  Morris 
Joseph  inaugurated  the  Hampstead  Sabbath  afternoon  serv- 
ices, which  were  of  a  reform  tendency.  They  continued  for 
three  years.  An  agitation  somewhat  similar  to  that  at- 
tending the  formation  of  the  reform  congregation  was 

1  The  confirmation  of  two  boys  and  two  girls  took  place  on  New 
Year's  Day,  1842.     Voice  of  Jacob,  I,  62. 

2  That  the  agitation  aroused  by  the  formation  of  the  reform  con- 
gregation was  not  without  effect  upon  the  congregations  generally 
is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  in  1847  a  pamphlet  was  issued,  en- 
titled "Laws  and  Eegulations  for  all  the  Synagogues  in  the  British 
Empire."     Although  no  reforms  as  such  were  enjoined,  yet  a  number 
of  paragraphs  gave  evidence  of  the  change  that  had  come  upon  the 
religious   worship   in   Jewry.     Thus   the    eighteenth   paragraph   pre- 
scribed decorum  during  the  services,  the  thirty-first  prohibited  the 
sale  of  mitzwoth  within  the  synagogue,  and  the  thirty-eighth  made 
provision  for  the  preaching  of  the  sermon  "on  ordinary  occasions 
immediately  before  epitt  n^sn  and  on  nJOTl  ffiO  before  isnff  fljnpn." 
Voice  of  Jacob,  VI,  66-67.     How  little  headway  reform  has  really 
made  in  "official  English  Judaism "  grows  apparent  from  the  con- 
troversy between  the  chief  rabbi  and  the  Eev.  Morris  Joseph  in  1893 
on  the  subject  of  the  retention  of  the  petitions  in  the  traditional 
liturgy  for  the  re-institution  of  the  sacrificial  worship  in  the  temple 
at  Jerusalem.     The  refusal  of  Mr.   Joseph  to  recite  these  prayers 
led  to  his  withdrawal  from  the  clergy  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
chief  rabbi  and  his  acceptance  of  the  position  of  minister  of  the 
reform  congregation. 

10 


146  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

witnessed  in  1902  when  the  Jewish  Religious  Union  was 
launched  in  London.  The  story  of  this  most  recent  forward 
step  for  religious  reform  by  a  body  of  English  Jews  will  be 
recounted  in  the  proper  place. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  FKANKFOBT  SOCIETY  OF  THE  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM1 

THE  Jewish  community  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main  had 
been  for  centuries  one  of  the  foremost  in  Germany ;  it  was 
distinguished  for  the  learned  men  who  had  filled  the  rab- 
binical position  there,  for  the  stirring  scenes  that  had  been 
enacted  in  its  famed  ' '  Gasse ' ' 2  and  for  the  prominence 
and  wealth  of  a  number  of  its  families.  While  the  city 
was  an  imperial  fief  its  Jewish  community  had  been  ruled 
by  special  legislation  (Judenordnungen)  which  the  Emper- 
ors issued  from  time  to  time ;  when  the  sway  of  the  Emper- 
ors came  to  an  end  in  1806,  Frankfort  passed  under  the 
rule  of  the  Prince  Primate  of  the  Rhenish  Confederation, 
Karl  von  Dahlberg.  This  ruler  published  a  new  order  for 
the  government  and  protection  of  the  Jews  which  was  not 
much  of  an  improvement  on  the  old  Judenordnungen,  for 
it  withheld  from  them  expressly  the  right  of  citizenship. 
When  the  Duchy  of  Frankfort  with  its  own  constitution 
was  formed,  upon  the  dissolution  of  the  Rhenish  Confed- 
eration, the  representatives  of  the  Jews  induced  the  Arch- 
duke Dahlberg  to  promulgate  a  special  law  in  considera- 
tion of  a  great  sum  of  money;  this  law  declared  that  the 
Jews  of  Frankfort  "with  their  children  and  descendants 
should  enjoy  civil  rights  and  privileges  equally  with  other 
citizens."  The  Jews  took  the  oath  of  citizenship  and  it 
seemed  indeed  as  though  the  long  night  of  mediaevalism 
had  passed  away  and  the  morn  of  freedom  had  dawned. 

1  Frankfurter  Verein  der  Beformfreunde. 

2  See    the    author 's    Old   European    Jewries,    46-81.     Philadelphia, 
1894. 

147 


148  THE  KEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

But  it  was  a  deceptive  hope.  After  the  fall  of  Napoleon 
a  reactionary  period  set  in,  the  evil  effects  of  which  were 
felt  for  the  time  being  by  the  Jews  throughout  Germany. 

The  Congress  of  Vienna,  which  was  convened  in  1814  for 
the  purpose  of  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  European  states 
after  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  and  which  was  participated  in 
by  the  great  statesmen  of  the  allied  countries,  gave  some 
consideration  also  to  the  Jewish  question;  the  fourteenth 
Article  of  the  first  draft  of  the  Acts  of  the  Congress,  as 
agreed  upon  by  the  representatives  of  Austria,  Prussia, 
and  Hanover,  had  declared  that  Jews  who  performed  all 
the  duties  of  citizens  should  be  accorded  all  the  rights  of 
citizenship,  and  that  wherever  the  existing  laws  of  a  state 
presented  obstacles  to  the  consummation  of  this  pro- 
gram, those  obstacles  should  be  removed  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible. A  number  of  the  representatives  of  the  smaller  Ger- 
man states  protested  against  this  paragraph,  but  the  two 
great  Powers,  Austria  and  Prussia,  insisted  upon  its  reten- 
tion. The  free  cities,  among  them  Frankfort,  which  had 
obtained  its  autonomy  in  the  meantime,  objected  particu- 
larly to  the  term  "rights  of  citizenship"  (Burgerrechte) 
and  demanded  the  substitution  of  the  phrase  ' l  civil  rights ' ' 
(Bilrgerliche  Rechte).  This  alteration  was  made,  and  in 
its  final  form  the  Article  included  the  further  provision 
that  until  such  a  change  became  an  accomplished  fact  the 
Jews  of  the  separate  states  should  continue  to  be  governed 
by  the  special  legislation  in  force  at  the  time.  This  action 
of  the  Congress  gave  ground  for  the  hope  that  the  spirit 
of  mediaevalism  that  still  obtained  in  the  conduct  of  the 
affairs  of  the  Jews  would  soon  disappear.  A  violent  anti- 
Jewish  literary  campaign  ensued,  however,  in  various 
cities  of  Germany,  which  culminated  in  the  turbulent  and 
disgraceful  hep-hep  outbreaks  of  the  year  1819  in  Frank- 
fort and  elsewhere. *  A  bitter  struggle  waged  between  the 

1  Graetz,  History  of  the  Jews  (English  translation),  V,  529.  Phila- 
delphia, 1895. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     14.9 

Senate  of  Frankfort  and  the  Jews  for  eight  years,  (1816 
to  1824)  in  which  latter  year  the  Jews  succeeded  in  obtain- 
ing certain  rights.  The  movement  for  Jewish  civil  emanci- 
pation went  bravely  forward  until  it  was  crowned  with 
success  in  the  revolutionary  year  1848  in  most  of  the  Ger- 
man states,  although  it  was  not  until  1864  that  the  last 
vestige  of  civil  discrimination  against  the  Jews  of  Frank- 
fort disappeared. 

But  the  agitation  for  change  was  not  confined  to  the 
political  and  civil  disabilities  under  which  the  Jews  rested ; 
the  dissatisfaction  with  the  status  quo  had  invaded  the 
religious  province  also.  In  former  chapters  the  earliest 
efforts  towards  religious  reform  in  Berlin,  Hamburg, 
Breslau,  and  London,  in  which  cities  sharp  contests  had 
been  waged  between  the  traditionalists  and  the  reformers 
have  been  traced.  An  encounter  between  traditionalists 
and  reformers  similar  to  those  already  described  took  place 
in  the  community  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  which  has 
an  interest  all  its  own  because  other  aspects  of  the  struggle 
were  brought  prominently  to  the  fore. 

In  Frankfort,  possibly  more  than  anywhere  else,  the 
intimate  connection  between  the  newer  educational  move- 
ment among  the  Jews  and  religious  reform  is  apparent. 
Frankfort  was  noted  among  the  Jewish  communities  of 
Germany  for  its  excellent  school,  the  Philanthropin,  where 
modern  methods  of  education  had  superseded  the  Cheder 
altogether.  The  children  who  attended  this  school  re- 
ceived instruction  in  all  branches  of  knowledge  commonly 
taught  in  secular  educational  institutes ;  instruction  in  Jew- 
ish subjects  only,  as  was  the  case  in  the  Cheder,  had  given 
way  to  a  more  extended  curriculum ;  life  necessarily  had  a 
larger  outlook  for  the  pupil  who  attended  such  a  school 
than  it  had  for  the  child  whose  education  was  restricted  to 
Jewish  subjects.  The  spirit  of  the  new  time  ruled  in  the 
one  place  while  the  spirit  of  the  ghetto  still  brooded  over 
the  other.  It  is  in  the  Philanthropin  that  the  first  faint 


150  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

traces  of  the  reform  agitation  in  Frankfort  are  discernible. 
Devotional  exercises  for  the  pupils  were  introduced  in  the 
year  1813;  religious  instruction  had  been  imparted  regu- 
larly since  the  organization  of  the  school  in  1804,  but  the 
need  for  a  service  that  should  edify  the  pupils  was  felt 
more  and  more  strongly.  In  the  synagogue  of  the  general 
community,  as  a  matter  of  course,  there  was  no  sign  of 
change;  the  rabbi,  Solomon  Abraham  Trier,  was  one  of 
the  most  uncompromising  opponents  to  any  innovation 
whatsoever,  as  shall  appear  later  on;  the  rising  generation 
was  repelled  rather  than  attracted  by  the  public  worship ; 
the  service  instituted  on  Sabbath  and  holidays  in  the 
Philanthropin  was  of  a  character  to  stimulate  devotion  and 
intensify  the  religious  spirit  of  the  young  people  within  its 
walls;  it  was  conducted  partly  in  the  vernacular  and  an 
address  was  delivered  in  German  weekly,  either  by  the 
head  master,  Dr.  M.  Hess,  or  the  teacher,  J.  Johlson. 1 
Thus  the  German  sermon  was  introduced  into  this  com- 
munity without  any  struggle,  whereas  had  the  attempt 
been  made  at  this  early  day  to  have  such  sermons  delivered 
in  the  communal  synagogue  it  would  have  entailed  a  bitter 
struggle  with  the  adherents  of  the  old  order,  as  had  been 
the  case  in  Berlin. 2  As  the  children  who  attended  this 
school  grew  into  manhood  and  womanhood  they  leaned 
naturally  towards  reform ;  nay  more,  the  services  conducted 
in  the  school  began  to  attract  adults  in  the  course  of  time. 

In  1825  Dr.  Michael  Creizenach  was  called  from  Mayence 
to  teach  in  the  school.  Creizenach  was  a  man  of  great 
ability  and  of  marked  personality ;  he  was  an  earnest  advo- 
cate of  the  reform  cause,  although  he  wavered  between 

1  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  II,  148.  For  a  full  account  of  these  services,  see  the 
recent  publication  Festschrift  zur  Jahrhundertfeier  der  Eealschule 
der  israelitischen  Gemeinde  (Philanthropin)  zu  Frankfurt  am  Main, 
1804-1904,  50-54.  Frankfurt  am  Main,  1904.  In  1813  the  name 
Philanthropin  was  changed  to  Real-  und  Volksschule  der  israelitischen 
Gemeinae. 

*Supra,  35. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     151 

decisive  outspokenness  and  the  desire  to  conciliate  the 
orthodox  party ; 1  like  so  many  writers  of  that  time  he 
aimed  to  prove  the  justification  for  reform  in  Judaism  from 
the  Talmud ;  he  hoped  thus  to  bridge  over  the  differences 
between  the  traditionalists  and  the  reformers,  and  to  recon- 
cile the  former  to  the  changes  which  were  taking  place  in 
the  interpretation  of  Judaism  and  which  he  felt  were  abso- 
lutely necessary.  But  in  this  he  could  not  succeed,  elo- 
quently and  learnedly  as  he  defended  his  thesis  in  a  number 
of  his  earlier  writings. 2  For  the  thesis  rested  upon  a 
fallacy. 3  True,  passages  can  be  cited  from  the  Talmud  in 
support  of  the  contention  that  authorities  of  former  times 
sanctioned  departures  from  established  law  and  custom  be- 
cause of  changed  conditions ; 4  but  these  were  isolated  in- 
stances; the  body  of  authority  remained  the  same.  The 
new  movement  in  Judaism,  however,  meant  something 
altogether  different ;  the  Jews  were  facing  a  state  of  affairs 
as  subversive  of  their  past  as  was  the  case  when  the  temple 
of  Jerusalem  was  destroyed  and  they  exchanged  their 
national  existence  for  a  world  mission.  Circumstances 
had  compelled  the  postponement  of  the  active  carrying  out 
of  this  prophetic  world  mission ;  for  eighteen  hundred  years 
they  were  forced  into  isolation  by  the  inhuman  policy  of 
both  church  and  state,  and  as  a  defense  against  their  hostile 
onslaughts  ''the  fence  of  the  law"  was  built  up,  and  sur- 
rounded the  religion  in  its  every  activity;  this  was  the 
religious  counterpart  to  their  political  state;  now  another 
crisis  was  at  hand;  the  ghetto  isolation  was  apparently 
drawing  to  a  close,  as  eighteen  hundred  years  before  the 

1  Jost,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  X,  i,  100. 

»xxxii.  Thesen  uber  den  Talmud  (Frankfurt,  1831)  and  the  earlier 
portions  of  his  chief  work  Shulhan  Aruk  oder  encyclopddische 
Darstellung  des  mosaischen  Gesetzes,  four  vols.  Frankfurt,  1833- 
1840. 

1  A.  Rebenstein,  in  Freund  's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  II, 
89.  Berlin,  1844. 

*  Supra,  73. 


152  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

national  existence  had  ceased.  The  Talmudical  legislation 
no  longer  fitted  conditions  and  the  spirit  of  the  Talmudical 
legislation  could  not  be  invoked  to  summon  forth  the  light 
which  was  to  distinguish  between  chaos  and  order,  between 
past  repression  and  prospective  freedom. 1  The  fortunes 
of  Jewry  were  undergoing  a  revolution;  the  Talmudical 
legislation  in  its  details  could  not  be  accommodated  to  the 
changes  superinduced  by  this  revolution ;  there  must  be  a 
new  adjustment  of  the  standards  even  though  this  involved 
a  new  interpretation  of  the  principles  of  tradition ;  the  pur- 
pose of  God  was  as  apparent  in  the  present  changes  as  it 
had  been  in  any  past  events,  and  since  God  had  brought 
this  to  pass  it  was  as  truly  a  divine  revelation  as  any  re- 
corded of  former  times : 2  hence  it  might  be  necessary  to 
disregard  the  form  that  the  faith  assumed  under  the  Tal- 
mudical guise  and  clothe  it  in  garments  altogether  differ- 
ent. The  Talmudical  legislation  could  not  be  expected  to 
meet  so  radical  a  change  as  the  new  time  involved,  hence 
the  failure  of  such  as  attempted  to  sail  the  craft  of  Juda- 
ism through  the  agitated  waters  of  the  sea  that  had  been 
unknown  to  the  Talmudical  mariners,  by  the  compass  and 
chart  fashioned  by  them.  Creizenach  himself  recognized 
this 3  before  his  death,  which  occurred  in  1842,  a  short 
time  before  there  took  place  the  sharp  and  definite  clash 
between  the  opposing  parties  in  Judaism  in  the  city  of  his 

1Cf.  Holdheim,  Ceremonidlgesetz  im  Gottesreich,  49-50.  Schwerin, 
1845. 

3  See  Holdheim 's  remarkable  statement  in  Freund  's  Zur  Juden- 
frage  in  Deutschland,  II,  165-166,  which  is  quoted  below;  also  ibid., 
p.  335. 

'In  his  later  writings  Creizenach  abandoned  this  position,  which 
involved,  besides  the  attempt  to  justify  the  reform  movement  by 
Talmudical  authority,  the  effort  to  fit  the  Talmudical  legislation  to 
the  needs  of  the  new  age,  as  the  Talmud  by  means  of  its  peculiar 
hermeneutics  had  done  with  the  Biblical  injunctions.  He  now  ad- 
vocated a  return  to  pure  Mosaism,  thus  disregarding  the  Talmudical 
period  of  Jewish  development  altogether ;  this  was  a  serious  mis- 
reading of  the  import  of  the  idea  of  tradition,  as  shall  appear. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     153 

adoption,  which  crisis  he,  possibly  more  than  any  single 
individual,  helped  to  precipitate. 

His  appointment  as  teacher  in  the  Philanthropin  proved 
to  be  of  far-reaching  effect  not  only  in  the  educational  but 
also  in  the  religious  life  of  the  scholars  of  the  institution ; 
nay  more,  his  influence  extended  beyond  the  walls  of  the 
school  into  the  community  at  large.  On  the  one  hand  he 
preached  definitely  and  positively  against  the  indifference 
of  such  as,  having  ceased  to  be  strict  observers  of  tradi- 
tional law,  form  and  custom,  had  swung  to  the  opposite 
extreme  of  aloofness  from  the  religious  life  altogether,  and 
on  the  other  hand  he  denounced  the  formalism  into  which 
rabbinical  Judaism  had  degenerated,  and  which,  being  the 
recognized  official  expression  of  the  faith,  was  the  primary 
cause  of  the  alienation  of  those  who  looked  to  religion  to 
be  a  living  reality  and  not  merely  the  observance  of  a  mass 
of  forms,  the  most  of  which  had  ceased  to  have  any  signifi- 
cance whatsoever  for  that  generation.  Creizenach  gave 
utterance  to  these  ideas  not  only  in  his  publications  but 
still  more  effectively  in  the  sermons  preached  at  the  weekly 
services  in  the  school.  Through  these  sermons,  the  services 
attracted  many  adults  and  the  number  of  participants 
grew  to  such  an  extent  that  a  special  chapel  known  as  the 
Andachtssaal  was  erected  in  1828.  The  confirmation  serv- 
ice for  boys  and  girls  was  introduced.  Similar  services 
were  conducted  in  another  educational  establishment,  the 
Weil  Institute. *  The  most  noteworthy  effect  of  these 
services  and  sermons  in  the  vernacular  was  that  they  paved 
the  way  for  reform. 2  However,  the  traditionalists  were 

1  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  II,  149. 

2  Even  Solomon  Abraham  Trier,  the  ultra  orthodox  rabbi  of  Frank- 
fort, acknowledged  the  necessity  of  sermons  in  the  vernacular  in  a 
derashah  preached  in  September,  1832;  because  of  his  own  inability 
to    deliver   such    sermons   he   requested   that   young  men   who   were 
capable  of  doing  so  apply  to  him  in  order  that  this  need  might  be 
met.     This  concession  on  the  part  of  Trier  was  admitted  to  be  due 
to   the   attractiveness   of   the   services   in   the    Andachtssaal   of   the 
Philanthropin.     See  letter  of  Abraham  Geiger  to  J.  Derenbourg  of 
date,  Sept.  28,  1832,  published  in  A.  Z.  d.  J.  LX  (1896),  61. 


154  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

not  blind  to  what  was  going  on ;  they  denounced  the  influ- 
ence of  the  teachers  of  the  Philanthropin  as  disintegrating 
and  demoralizing,  and  blamed  the  instruction  in  secular 
branches  as  being  responsible  for  the  breaking  away  from 
the  traditions.  Hence  they  concluded  that  the  situation 
could  be  saved  only  by  the  re-establishment  of  an  old-time 
school  wherein  Hebrew  branches  alone  should  be  taught. 
It  became  apparent  before  long  that  such  a  school  was 
doomed  to  failure;  in  order  to  ensure  its  success  they 
determined  to  introduce  secular  studies  into  the  curricu- 
lum, these  to  be  secondary,  however,  to  the  Hebrew  instruc- 
tion. Even  with  this  concession  the  school  did  not  flourish 
and  had  to  be  closed.  This  failure  did  not  discourage  the 
advocates  and  upholders  of  the  traditional  system  of  Jew- 
ish education.  They  sought  to  establish  a  higher  institute 
for  the  exclusive  study  of  the  Talmud  and  the  allied  dis- 
ciplines. A  long  and  heated  controversy  on  the  Talmud 
and  rabbinism  ensued ;  voices  were  heard  pro  and  con, 
but  the  Talmudical  party  were  championing  in  this  in- 
stance, as  it  proved,  a  hopeless  cause.  They  received  no 
encouragement  at  the  hands  of  the  Senate  of  the  city  in 
their  plea  for  the  establishment  of  this  special  Talmudical 
academy,  and  the  attempt  was  abandoned. *  The  cause  of 
reform  was  winning  its  way  quietly  not  only  through  the 
educational  work  within  the  community,  but  it  was  furth- 
ered also  by  the  attitude  of  non-interference  on  the  part 
of  the  law-making  body  of  the  city.  As  has  been  already 
mentioned,  ever  since  the  Jews  had  been  permitted  to  dwell 
in  Frankfort  they  had  been  governed  by  special  legisla- 
tive acts.  After  Frankfort  had  become  a  free  city,  and 
notably  after  the  passing  of  the  sway  of  Napoleon  and  the 
meeting  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  the  Jews  petitioned  for 
the  rights  of  citizenship.  The  sixteenth  article  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Congress,  as  adopted  finally,  gave  rise 
to  prolonged  discussions  in  the  Senate,  which  resulted  in  the 
1  Jost,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  X,  part  i,  101. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OP  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     155 

passing  of  the  law  of  Sept.  1,  1824,  defining  the  restrictions 
and  rights  of  the  Jews.  This  law  declared  that  the  Jews 
could  regulate  their  own  religious  affairs  and  were  exempt 
from  all  interference  of  the  state  or  the  Christian  com- 
munity in  their  internal  religious  organization. 

The  agitations  in  the  community,  growing  out  of  the 
differences  between  progressivists  and  reactionaries,  in 
the  fourth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  converg- 
ing gradually  to  the  point  of  gaining  a  majority  represen- 
tation on  the  governing  board  of  the  community.  This 
promised  to  be  of  far-reaching  importance  because  of  the 
fact  that  the  old  age  of  the  rabbi  made  the  election  of  an 
associate  imperative.  The  progressive  party  naturally 
wished  to  secure  the  appointment  of  one  of  the  new  school 
of  rabbis  to  the  post;  the  traditionalists  were  just  as  de- 
sirous of  electing  a  rabbi  of  the  old  school,  to  whom  Talmud 
and  ShulcJian  Aruk  were  oracle  and  authority.  This 
contingency,  together  with  other  difficulties  arising  out  of 
questions  which  touched  the  administration  of  all  the  affairs 
of  the  congregation,  induced  the  Directory  of  the  same  to 
request  the  Senate  to  pass  a  general  act  on  the  organiza- 
tion, the  duties  and  the  mode  of  procedure  of  the  govern- 
ing board  of  the  Israelitish  community.  This  petition 
aroused  intense  excitement,  and  an  address  signed  by  212 
members  of  the  community  was  presented  to  the  Senate,  in 
which  the  request  was  preferred  that  all  the  religious  and 
ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  community  should  be  taken  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  Directory,  who  should  thereafter  con- 
cern themselves  only  with  the  political,  civil,  social,  and 
other  non-religious  concerns  of  the  community,  and  that 
the  religious  affairs  be  made  the  care  of  a  special  committee 
as  suggested  in  the  address.  This  called  forth  a  counter- 
address,  signed  by  272  names,  denouncing  the  unwarranted 
procedure  of  the  signers  of  the  first  address.  The  result 
of  all  this  agitation  was  the  passing  of  an  Act  by  the  Senate 
on  Feb.  16,  1839,  for  the  regulation  of  the  affairs  of  the 


156  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Israelitish  community;  the  communication  of  the  Act  to 
the  Directory  was  accompanied  by  an  extract  from  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Senate  which  contained  these  striking 
words :  ' '  The  Senate  will  be  ready  always  to  oppose  every- 
and  anything  that  may  wound  the  conscientious  scruples 
of  believing  Israelites  or  may  disturb  or  place  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  their  traditional  worship,  but  on  the  other  hand 
it  will  encourage  and  support  such  institutions  as  the 
progressive  needs  of  the  age  make  necessary  for  the  true 
and  essential  demands  of  religion. "  Cognizance  is  taken 
here  of  the  differing  wings  of  religious  thought  in  Juda- 
ism. The  fourth  paragraph  of  this  Act  of  1839  is  of  par- 
ticular interest  and  import  in  the  story  of  Jewish  reform, 
notably  in  the  light  of  later  events.  This  paragraph  was 
concerned  with  the  question  of  the  qualification  of  the 
future  rabbis  of  the  congregation;  it  required  that  the 
candidates  for  the  position  ' '  be  German  by  birth,  that  they 
must  have  graduated  from  a  German  gymnasium  and  have 
taken  courses  in  Oriental  languages,  in  historical  and  phil- 
osophical branches  in  a  German  university."1  This  im- 
plied, as  a  matter  of  course,  that  the  day  of  the  rabbi 
trained  and  educated  in  the  yeshibah  only  was  past,  and 
served  notice  that  the  aspirants  to  the  rabbinical  position 
in  this  community  must  be  men  of  modern  education  and 
modern  training.  In  so  far,  the  progressive  party  had 
gained  a  victory,  and  the  old  rabbi  who,  as  was  mentioned 
specifically  in  the  Act,  was  to  remain  undisturbed  in  his 
position  could  not  but  be  troubled  by  the  evident  signs  of 
the  impending  introduction  of  a  new  order  of  things  in 
the  religious  guidance  of  the  community. 

These  signs  had  been  apparent  for  a  number  of  years 
past  in  private  circles  within  the  Jewry  of  Frankfort  to 
a  much  greater  degree  than  appears  from  the  official  his- 

1  Israelit.  Annalen,  I,  102.  See  also  a  correspondence  between  Sena- 
tor Frederick  Ihm,  the  referee  for  Jewish  affairs,  and  the  Directory 
of  the  Congregation,  ibid.,  132-4. 


FEANKFOBT  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     157 

tory  of  the  community  as  embodied  in  Acts  and  regula- 
tions. Since  the  breaking  up  of  mediaeval  conditions  there 
had  been  in  Frankfort,  as  in  Berlin  and  other  German 
cities,  a  coterie  of  Jewish  laymen,  who,  educated  in  the 
gymnasia  and  the  universities,  were  dissatisfied  with  tradi- 
tional Judaism,  and  formed  a  nucleus  for  the  dissemina- 
tion of  ideas  advocating  the  reform  cause.  Individually, 
these  men  were  at  variance  with  the  official  representatives 
of  Judaism ;  they  were  out  of  sympathy  with  the  existing 
conditions  in  the  synagogue;  when  Geiger  established  his 
Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  fur  judische  Theologie  they 
hailed  this  as  the  dawning  of  a  new  day;  here  was  a  plat- 
form for  the  discussion  of  the  new  wants  and  a  forum  for 
the  scientific  exposition  of  the  principles  and  the  literature 
of  Judaism.  The  gradual  appearance  on  the  scene  of  Ger- 
man Jewish  life  of  a  new  school  of  rabbis,  men  graduated 
from  the  universities,  a  number  of  whom  contributed  to 
this  magazine,  encouraged  them  in  the  hope  that  definite 
steps  would  be  taken  towards  an  official  adjustment  of  Juda- 
ism to  life ;  but  the  rabbis  advanced  too  slowly  for  them ; 
with  very  few  exceptions  these  rabbis  considered  it  advis- 
able to  proceed  very  cautiously,  and  to  reconcile  the  old 
with  the  new  rather  than  discard  the  old  in  the  interest 
of  the  new ;  in  theory  many  of  the  rabbis  quite  agreed  with 
the  most  pronounced  opinions  concerning  the  inadequacy 
and  the  unsuitedness  of  the  Talmudical  legislation  to 
modern  needs  and  the  modern  spirit,  but  in  practice  they 
continued  to  conduct  their  office  along  the  traditional  lines ; 
they  declared  their  sympathy  with  religious  progress  by 
enlisting  under  the  banner  of  what  they  called  progressive 
rabbinism  (der  fortschreitende  Rabbinismus)  •  the  laymen 
just  spoken  of  had  no  patience  with  this  Fabian  attitude ; 
they  wanted  an  outspoken  declaration  expressive  of  the 
change  that  had  come  over  Judaism ;  they  began  to  accuse 
the  rabbis  of  cowardice  and  to  take  matters  into  their  own 
hands;  they  wrote  slightingly  and  bitingly  of  the  lack  of 


158  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

courage  displayed  by  the  rabbis  in  not  rising  to  the  occa- 
sion, and  coined  the  phrase  "  creep  ing  rabbinism"  (der 
fortkriechende  Rabbinismus)  as  a  substitute  for  the  rabbis' 
own  designation  "progressive  rabbinism." 

A  company  of  such  laymen  was  much  in  evidence  in 
Frankfort  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century;  they  had  formed  a  society  significantly  entitled 
"The  Society  of  the  Dawn"  (Die  Lesegesellschaft  zur 
aufgehenden  Morgenrothe),  the  members  of  which  were 
described  by  one  of  their  number  in  1841,  as  "not  subscrib- 
ing to  Talmudical  ceremonialism  which  separates  the  Israel- 
ites from  their  fellow-citizens,"  after  a  rhetorical  outburst 
in  the  following  strain:  "How  long  will  the  Talmud-dev- 
otees confound  the  pure  religion  of  an  Isaiah,  a  Jeremiah, 
a  Micah  with  the  ceremonial  religion  of  the  Pharisees? 
....  How  long  will  they  continue  to  oppose  the  progress 
of  civilization  and  the  civic  life  ? " 1  The  first  of  these 
questions  shows  how  little  men  of  this  stamp  understood 
the  true  inwardness  of  the  reform  movement  in  its  attitude 
towards  the  Talmud  and  how  superficial  was^their  under- 
standing of  the  true  development  of  Judaism. 

An  anonymous  article  which  appeared  in  Geiger's 
Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  in  1837, 2  and  which  was 
written  supposedly  by  one  of  these  Jewish  laymen  of 
Frankfort, 3  describes  their  attitude  so  fully  and  so  clearly 
that  it  may  be  considered  almost  in  the  light  of  a  prelim- 
inary notice  of  the  formation  of  the  Society  of  the  Friends 
of  Keform,  the  subject  of  this  chapter.  The  article  is  en- 
titled "Jews  and  Judaism,"  and  has  the  sub-heading 
"Keflections  of  a  Layman."  After  setting  forth  the 
progress  of  the  Jews  in  various  branches  of  learning  in  the 
new  era,  their  strides  in  the  struggle  for  civil  emancipation 
and  their  growing  participation  in  the  life  and  endeavor 

*I.  N.  J.,  II  (1841),  82. 

2  Pp.  161-71. 

8  Jost,  Gesch.  der  Israeliten,  X,  part  iii,  212,  note  3. 


FBANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     159 

of  society,  he  declares  broadly  that  although  "the  Jews 
have  progressed,  Judaism  has  stood  still."     There  may  be 
some,  he  continues,  who  have  a  correct  understanding  of 
what  Judaism  really  is,  but  as  long  as  there  is  no  clear,  un- 
mistakable declaration  of  what  is  to  be  considered  pure 
Judaism  and  what  only  temporary  form,  so  long  will  the 
religion  continue  in  its  present  distortion;  "as  yet  Juda- 
ism is  supposed  to  include  every  jot  of  the  traditional  rab- 
binical interpretation;  the  Shulchan  Aruk  with  its  insati- 
able commentaries  and  super-commentaries  is  still  recog- 
nized as  the  authoritative  code,  a  deviation  from  which  is 
considered  equivalent  to  a  deviation  from  the  religion  it- 
self."    He  declares  that  the  prime  need  is  a  sifting  of  the 
mass  of  accretions  that  have  attached  themselves  to  Juda- 
ism, and  the  separation  of  the  pure  metal  from  the  dross ; 
the  rabbis  should  do  this ;  he  recognizes,  however,  that  the 
rabbis,  ministering  as  they  do  to  congregations  composed 
of  many  elements,  are  placed  in  a  difficult  position,  and  in 
their  longing  to  have  the  confidence  of  all  are  fearful  of 
taking  decisive  steps  forward  even  if  they  would.     Be  this 
therefore  as  it  may;  be  the  rabbis  chargeable  with  neglect 
in  a  fearless  expression  of  their  religious  convictions  or  no, 
' '  it  becomes  the  duty  of  us  non-theologians,  if  we  have  the 
welfare  of  Judaism,  truth,  and  progress  at  heart,  to  make 
solemn  declaration  of  our  views  in  order  to  remove  from 
ourselves  the  reproach— first,  of  indifference,  and  secondly, 
of  a  contradiction  between  our  thoughts  and  acts  on  the 
one  hand  and  our  religious  profession  on  the  other,  as  well 
as  to  encourage  by  this  sign  of  earnest  participation  such 
rabbis  as  are  perhaps  ready  and  anxious  to  take  decisive 
steps  forward."     He  recognizes  that  non-theologians  have 
neither   the  requisite  knowledge  nor   authority,   but  this 
declaration  of  theirs  is  to  be  only  a  general  statement  of 
their  convictions,  and  is  to  be  rather  in  the  nature  of  an 
address  to  the  rabbis  of  Germany  calling  upon  them  to 
state  whether  the  declaration  is  a  truthful  presentation  or 


160      THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

no.  But  of  all  things  it  was  necessary  to  publish  such  a 
declaration;  all  else  was  detail  that  could  be  worked  out 
later ;  this  declaration  should  make  known  that  the  signers 
"do  not  feel  in  conscience  bound  to  invest  the  prescrip- 
tions of  the  Talmud,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  the  later 
rabbis,  in  as  far  as  these  cannot  be  proven  by  scientific 
exegesis  to  have  been  derived  directly  from  the  Bible  or  to 
have  been  handed  down  by  Moses,  with  any  greater  author- 
ity than  is  accorded  all  other  temporary  religious  institu- 
tions whose  reasonableness  and  whose  agreement  with  the 
spirit  of  Judaism  must  first  be  established. ' '  He  concludes 
by  saying  that  in  whatever  community  a  sufficient  number 
of  intelligent  laymen  may  be  found  they  must  unite  in  a 
declaration  of  this  kind.  The  cleft  between  practise  and 

profession    must    be    removed The    differences    in 

Judaism  exist;  better  that  the  sympathizers  range  them- 
selves together  than  that  they  act  single-handedly;  better 
that  a  clear  understanding  be  arrived  at  than  that  com- 
promises be  resorted  to;  better,  in  short,  that  the  present 
state  of  affairs  be  made  the  starting-point  of  true  progress 
than  that,  through  willful  blindness,  it  lead  to  complete 
disintegration. 

Without  doubt,  such  were  the  sentiments  that  prevailed 
with  a  large  number  of  Jews  throughout  Germany;  these 
sentiments  crystallized  into  definite  form  in  Frankfort, 
where  in  November,  1842,  a  number  of  Jews  formed  them- 
selves into  a  society  which  they  called  ' '  The  Society  of  the 
Friends  of  Reform"  (Verein  der  Reformfreunde).  They 
were  all  laymen ;  it  was  distinctly  a  lay  movement ;  the  ab- 
sence of  all  theologians  from  the  membership  of  the  society 
was  so  noticeable  a  feature  that  it  could  not  but  arouse 
comment,  especially  as  the  purpose  of  the  society  was  pre- 
eminently religious.  The  charge  was  preferred  against 
its  promoters  that  the  exclusion  of  theologians  was  inten- 
tional; Dr.  M.  A.  Stern  of  Gottingen,  famed  as  a  mathe- 
matician and  undoubtedly  a  man  of  exceptional  intellectual 


FEANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     161 

powers,  wrote  a  series  of  open  letters  *  in  answer  to  attacks 
upon  the  society.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  these 
letters  frequently,  as  they  are  the  apologia  for  the  society. 
In  one  place  he  meets  the  charge  of  exclusion  of  rabbis  from 
the  society  by  claiming  that  there  is  no  longer  any  priestly 
caste  in  Judaism;  there  is  no  distinction  between  rabbis 
and  laymen  on  the  score  of  sacerdotalism;  the  only  recog- 
nized distinction  in  Judaism  is  between  those  who  know 
and  those  who  do  not  know  the  law.  Herein  lies  a  great 
principle  of  religious  freedom,  and  the  fact  that  the  society 
is  composed  altogether  of  so-called  laymen  is  equivalent  to 
a  rebuke  to  the  assumptions  of  the  occupants  of  the  rab- 
binical office  who  would  bring  into  Judaism  this  distinction 
between  rabbi  and  laymen,  a  distinction  thoroughly  foreign 
to  the  genius  of  the  faith ; 2  he  refers  to  the  article  pub- 
lished some  years  before  in  Geiger's  theological  magazine, 
which  urged  the  formation  of  societies  of  laymen  for  the 
very  purpose  for  which  the  Frankfort  society  was  founded.3 
Still,  despite  this  explanation  which  contains  a  great  and 
salient  truth,  there  seems  to  be  little  doubt  that  the  real 
reason  for  the  exclusion  of  rabbis  was  a  certain  contempt 
which  the  ' '  intellectual ' '  among  the  laity  felt  for  the  occu- 
pants of  the  rabbinical  position.  The  rabbis  had  not  grap- 
pled with  the  religious  problem  as  vigorously  as  these  lay- 
men thought  they  should  have  done ;  they  themselves  would 
therefore  take  the  matter  in  their  own  hands  and  lead  the 
way.  4  Geiger,  the  foremost  figure  in  the  Jewish  theolog- 
ical world,  was  a  close  friend  of  Stern 's ;  letters  passed  be- 
tween them  in  one  of  which  Geiger  speaks  of  "your  con- 
tempt for  the  theologians— which  you  deny,  it  is  true,  but 

1  Offene  Brief e  uber  den  Eeformverein;  I.  N.  J.,  vol.  V  (1844), 
171-175,  179-183,  187-191,  197-201,  205-209,  285-288,  293-297,  301- 
304;  VI  (1845),  41-43,  49-53,  57-59. 

zlbid.,  V,  182.  'Supra,  158. 

* "  Prof essional  theologians  were  excluded  intentionally  from  the 
deliberations  of  the  society/' — Jost,  Gesch.  der  Isr,,  X,  part  iii,  213. 
11 


162      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

which  is  only  too  apparent. '  ' 1  This  sharp  differentiation 
was  unfortunate  inasmuch  as  it  accentuated  the  very  dis- 
tinction that  Stern  claimed  the  society  desired  to  eradicate, 
and  arrayed  all  the  rabbis,  with  one  exception, 2  against 
the  movement. 

The  brief  career  of  the  Frankfort  Reform  Society  was 
one  of  the  most  striking  episodes  of  the  drama  of  Jewish 
religious  development  that  is  being  unfolded  in  these  pages. 
The  men  who  formed  the  society  were  actuated  by  the  con- 
viction that  there  must  be  many  Jews  throughout  Germany 
who  were  ripe  for  a  new  expression  of  the  principles  of 
Judaism,  since  the  changed  political  and  social  status,  the 
acquisition  of  secular  knowledge;  in  short,  the  complete 
break  between  their  external  fortunes  and  the  conditions, 
of  the  life  of  their  ancestors  must  make  them  feel  the  im- 
possibility of  fitting  the  rabbinical  interpretation  of  the 
religion  to  the  modern  Jewish  environment.  It  was  also 
felt  that  if  they  would  make  a  short,  sharp,  and  definite 
declaration  of  what  they  considered  the  essential  princi- 
ples of  the  faith,  this  would  encourage  all  who  entertained 
like  sentiments  to  do  the  same,  and  the  concerted  move- 
ment away  from  rabbinical  Judaism  (many  of  whose  enact- 
ments were  disregarded  by  a  multitude  of  contemporaneous 
Jews)  and  towards  a  modern  Judaism  would  be  begun. 

The  members  of  the  society  met  privately  for  deliberation 
and  discussion.  They  formulated  five  principles  as  their 
declaration  of  faith,  viz. :  ( 1 )  that  they  consider  the 
Mosaic  religion  capable  of  continuous'  development;  (2) 
that  they  do  not  consider  binding  the  various  ritual,  dietary, 
and  other  laws  concerned  with  bodily  practices  that 

1  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  169. 

2  M.  Hess  of  Saxe-Weimar,  editor  of  the  Israelit  des  neunzehnten 
Jahrhunderts,  which  newspaper  became,  in  a  measure,  the  organ  of 
the  society,  although  Hess  denied  this  through  the  declaration  that  he 
was  not   a  member   of   the   society   nor   a   chronicler   of   its   doings. 
Orient,  No.  20,  1845. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOBM     163 

emanated  from  the  ancient  polity;  (3)  that  they  do  not 
consider  circumcision  binding  either  as  a  religious  act  or 
a  symbol;  (4)  that  they  do  not  recognize  the  Talmud  as 
authoritative:  and  (5)  that  they  do  not  expect  or  long  for 
a  Messiah  who  will  lead  the  Jews  back  to  Palestine,  but  re- 
gard the  country  to  which  they  belong  either  by  birth  or 
citizenship  as  their  only  fatherland.  This  original  decla- 
ration of  principles  was  altered  at  a  subsequent  meeting, 
when  it  was  determined  to  omit  paragraphs  2  and  3  and 
cast  the  other  three  paragraphs  into  another  form;  this 
was  done  and  the  revised  draft,  which  will  be  cited  present- 
ly, was  adopted  and  promulgated  as  the  creed  of  the 
society.  The  omission  of  the  two  paragraphs  was  due  to 
the  argument  which  was  advanced  successfully  that  such 
a  declaration  should  be  general  in  character  and  not  touch 
special  points  about  which  there  were  still  such  decided 
differences  of  opinion,  even  among  many  who  might  con- 
fidently be  expected  to  sympathize  with  a  forward  move- 
ment. 

They  did  not  make  their  deliberations  nor  this  declara- 
tion public  at  once,  for  they  felt  that  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe ;  they  desired  to  secure  first  the  co-operation  of  sympa- 
thizers throughout  Germany.  The  declaration  of  princi- 
ples, together  with  a  prefatory  address  setting  forth  the 
objects  and  aims  of  the  society,  was  sent  privately  to  prom- 
inent men  in  various  localities  to  obtain  their  signatures; 
this  delayed  the  work  greatly  as  it  took  weeks  at  times  to 
secure  one  signature ;  as  a  result,  only  some  fifty  signatures 
had  been  obtained  at  the  beginning  of  August,  1843.  *  The 
most  celebrated  of  the  men  whom  they  addressed  were 
Gabriel  Riesser,  of  Hamburg,  the  dauntless  champion  of 
Jewish  political  emancipation  in  the  German  states,  who 
had  expressed  frequently  his  sympathy  with  the  move- 

1 M.  Isler,  Gabriel  Riesser 's  Leben,  nebst  Mittheilungen  aus  seinen 
Schriften,  I,  359.     Frankfort,  1867. 


164  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ment  for  religious  reform, 1  and  Dr.  M.  A.  Stern,  of  Got- 
tingen,  who  had  been  present  at  some  of  the  preliminary 
meetings.  Letters  were  exchanged  whose  purpose  was  the 
free  and  unhampered  expression  of  opinions;  these  letters 
were  of  a  confidential  nature,  but  some  of  those  that  passed 
between  Riesser  and  Stern  were  given  out  for  publication 
by  an  adherent  of  the  orthodox  party  into  whose  hands 
they  had  fallen, 2  together  with  excerpts  from  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  society  which  had  been  altogether  private ;  these 
extracts  were  garbled  and  edited  in  a  manner  to  discredit 
the  society,  which  in  self-defense  was  now  forced  to  give 
to  the  public  prints  the  address  and  declaration  mentioned 
above.  This  was  in  August,  1843. 

These  official  documents  of  the  society  were  three  in 
number,  marked  A,  B,  and  C.  A  was  a  circular  letter 
accompanying  the  documents;  B  was  the  address  which 
explained  the  reasons  and  aims  of  the  movement,  and  was 
entitled  "  Program  of  a  Declaration  of  German  Israel- 
ites. Presented  for  Consideration  to  friends  of  religious 
reform  in  Judaism,  1843 ' ' 3  and  C  was  the  declaration 
proper.  4  The  letter,  which  was  signed  by  Simon  Maas, 
Dr.  jur.,  in  the  name  of  the  Jewish  Friends  of  Reform, 
requested  the  co-operation  of  the  addressee  in  the  under- 
taking with  which  a  number  of  reputable  Israelites  had 
declared  themselves  in  sympathy,  and  for  the  furtherance 
of  which  many  highly  respected  men  in  Germany  were 
ready.  The  founders  of  the  society  requested  the  signa- 
tures of  all  "who  do  not  expect  a  Messiah  to  lead  them 
back  to  Palestine ;  all  who  do  not  accord  any  authority  or 

1  Supra,  75,  110. 

3  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VII  (1843),  no.  35. 

8  Programm  zu  einer  Erlcldrung  deutscher  Israeliten,  Freunden 
religioser  Reform  im  Judenthume  zur  Beherzigung  vorgelegt,  1843. 

4  These  documents  were  published  in  full  in  Freund  's  Zur  Juden- 
frage  in  Deutschland,  1843,  pp.   257-65   and  as  the  supplement  to 
no.   44  of  Vol.  IV   (1843)    of  the  Israelit,   &e$  neuwehnten  Jahr- 
hunderts. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  EEFORM     165 

obligatory  power  to  the  confused  and  frequently  meaning- 
less rabbinical  interpretations  and  injunctions;  all  who 
strive  for  a  form  of  faith  whose  enlivening  principle  is 
pure  Mosaism."  The  letter  asserted  further  that  reform 
in  Judaism  existed  in  reality,  and  that  all  that  was  neces- 
sary was  an  open  declaration ;  as  a  result  of  this  the  reform 
movement  would  be  sure  to  receive  fitting  recognition  and 
become  a  working  force  in  Jewish  life. 

The  so-called  program  opens  with  a  eulogy  of  Moses 
and  the  religion  he  established;  this  religion  is  capable  of 
unceasing  development;  however,  many  of  the  institutions 
of  Mosaism  were  of  a  national  character  and  dependent  upon 
the  possession  of  a  particular  land.  When  in  the  course 
of  time  the  land  was  lost  and  the  nationality  came  to  an 
end,  many  of  the  Mosaic  ordinances  ceased  to  exercise  any 
binding  force,  e.  g.,  the  laws  regulating  the  ownership  of 
land,  the  prerogatives  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  the  sacrifi- 
cial ritual  and  the  criminal  code.  Their  place  was  taken, 
however,  by  a  mass  of  ritual  and  ceremonial  laws  to  which 
in  time  the  greatest  importance  came  to  be  attached,  and 
Judaism  became  a  system  of  observances  whereby  the 
spiritual  content  and  import  of  the  religion  were  dimmed. 
This  externalism  assumed  ever  greater  prominence  during 
the  ages  of  exclusion  and  oppression;  the  Jew  clung  to 
every  observance,  custom,  and  ceremony  that  had  developed 
in  the  course  of  the  ages.  When,  however,  the  era  of  free- 
dom dawned,  men  arose  who  realized  with  dismay  how  far 
Judaism  had  traveled  along  this  path  and  how  pronounced 
was  the  difference  between  the  inner  purity  and  dignity  of 
the  divine  truth  of  the  religion  and  the  external  form  that 
it  had  assumed.  The  new  opportunities  had  been  grasped 
by  such  as  these,  and  they  had  acquired  the  culture  of  the 
people  among  whom  they  lived.  They  sought  to  extricate 
the  jewel  of  Judaism  from  the  dross  with  which  it  had  be- 
come encrusted;  they  found  their  inspiration  in  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  who  had  proclaimed  that 


166  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  spirit  of  the  religion  was  independent  of  the  blood  of 
bullocks.  .  .  .  Yet  attempts  at  reform  up  to  this  time  con- 
sisted merely  in  liturgical  imitations  of  other  religions  or 
in  compromises  with  the  followers  of  rabbinism.  Rarely 
did  any  one  think  of  emphasizing  the  capacity  of  Mosaism 
for  unending  development.  In  so  far  the  charge  is  true 
that  no  decisive  step  has  been  taken  by  the  Jews  to  conform 
their  religious  practice  to  the  higher  culture  to  which  they 
owe  their  intellectual  progress.  Civilization  has  freed 
them  from  rabbinical  jurisdiction;  it  must  be  our  task  to 
purify  the  religion  of  all  antiquated  disfigurements  and 
present  it  in  a  worthy  form.  "In  our  day  the  difference 
between  the  inner  truth  of  Judaism  and  its  external  form 
has  become  especially  acute.  Nurtured  by  the  intellectual 
culture  of  the  age  many  of  those  who  are  accounted  mem- 
bers of  the  Mosaic  religious  community  have  arrived  at  the 
conviction  that  most  of  the  practical  commands,  the  ob- 
servance of  which  constitutes  the  bulk  of  present-day  Juda- 
ism, rest  on  human  and  temporary  premises.  They  claim 
rightfully  that  this  external  form  is  for  the  most  part  with- 
out significance— yes,  even  unworthy  of  pure  religion— and 
they  draw  the  inner  content  of  divine  truth,  which  an 
earlier  generation  found  in  the  Law,  from  those  treasures 
of  wisdom  alone  which  have  won  over  to  the  truth  so  many 
great  spirits  of  all  nations.  Thus  thousands  have  re- 
nounced allegiance  to  Talmudic  rabbinical  Judaism,  and 
are  connected  outwardly  with  the  Mosaic  religious  com- 
munity only  by  habit  or  by  the  control  of  the  state  or  by 
family  ties.  This  condition  of  affairs  is  destructive  and 
immoral;  for  as  long  as  a  man  lives  in  a  community  he 
should  not  pass  as  something  altogether  different  externally 
from  what  he  is  in  thought  and  inner  conviction.  The 
Jew  who  has  grown  indifferent  to  his  religion  on  this  ac- 
count must  decide  whether  he  will  continue  to  be  known 
merely  as  a  Jew  by  birth,  thus  sacrificing  free-will  to  habit, 
and  being  deprived  of  all  outward  religious  association 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     167 

that  is  expressive  of  his  inner  conviction  or— whether,  long- 
ing for  some  tangible  form,  he  will  join  some  other  religious 
association.  .  .  .  But  those  who  cannot  content  themselves 
with  either  of  these  alternatives  will  pin  their  faith  to  the 
belief  in  the  capacity  of  Judaism  for  development,  and 
instead  of  continuing  in  a  state  of  indolent  lethargy  will 
aim  to  harmonize  their  spiritual  convictions  with  their  pro- 
fessions. .  .  .  Moved  by  these  considerations,  a  number  of 
German  Israelites  have  determined  to  give  expression  to 
their  opinions  of  the  present  conditions  in  Judaism  through 
a  public  declaration,  and  to  renounce  formally  their  al- 
legiance to  all  objectionable  commands,  and  to  all  antiquated 
customs,  which  to  all  intents  and  purposes  they  have  re- 
jected long  ago."  They  disclaimed  any  purpose  of  de- 
siring to  obtain  through  this  declaration  more  political 
rights  than  were  accorded  to  the  strict  observers  of  the  rab- 
binical code;  neither  did  they  intend  to  formulate  any 
dogmas  or  create  a  sect  or  a  schism ;  all  that  they  aimed  at 
was  an  open,  honest  statement  of  facts  and  beliefs  as  had 
obtained  in  Jewish  life  for  a  number  of  years  past;  and 
particularly  did  they  desire  to  convince  competent  religious 
teachers  that  truth  has  a  home  in  Israel,  and  to  encourage 
such  to  support  with  all  the  weight  of  their  learning  the 
religious  standpoint  of  truth-loving  laymen.  The  address 
concludes  with  the  words,  "least  of  all  is  it  our  desire  to 
hurt  the  susceptibilities  of  the  strict  adherents  of  rabbinical 
Judaism.  Let  us  hope  that  success  will  crown  this  our 
honest  endeavor,  not  only  to  give  our  religion  a  worthier 
form,  but  also  to  expound  the  pure  content  of  Judaism, 
and  to  remove  from  it  everything  which  has  degraded  and 
dishonored  it  in  the  eyes  of  thinking  men.  Every  partic- 
ipant in  this  movement  feels  already  great  inner  satisfac- 
tion in  that  he  has  chosen  his  standpoint  in  reference  to  the 
highest  spiritual  interests,  and  has  paid  allegiance  to  the 
truth.  Let  us  begin  bravely,  then,  a  task  not  only  necessary 
from  the  civic  standpoint  and  intellectually  justified  but 
also  highly  moral  and,  in  all  truth,  pleasing  to  God. ' ' 


168  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Hereupon  followed  the  famous  Declaration;  it  consisted 
of  three  paragraphs  as  follows: 

1.  We  recognize  the  possibility  of  unlimited  develop- 
ment in  the  Mosaic  religion. 

2.  The   collection   of   controversies,    dissertations,   and 
prescriptions  commonly  designated  by  the  name  Talmud 
possesses  for  us  no  authority  either  from  the  dogmatic  or 
the  practical  standpoint. 

3.  A  Messiah  who  is  to  lead  back  the  Israelites  to  the 
land  of  Palestine  is  neither  expected  nor  desired  by  us; 
we  know  no  fatherland  except  that  to  which  we  belong  by 
birth  or  citizenship. 

As  already  mentioned,  the  publication  of  these  documents 
was  premature,  and  had  been  forced  by  the  excitement 
aroused  by  the  reports  circulated  by  the  enemies  of  the 
society  in  the  public  prints;  it  had  been  the  intention  of 
the  founders  of  the  society  to  refrain  from  all  public  activ- 
ity and  agitation  until  so  many  signatures  had  been  ob- 
tained from  all  sections  of  Germany  as  to  prove  that  this 
was  a  great  popular  movement ;  they  had  not  had  time  to 
accomplish  this  purpose,  if  in  truth  it  could  ever  have  been 
accomplished  with  the  program  they  had  formulated. 
This,  of  course,  must  remain  conjecture  for  all  time;  the 
facts  in  the  case  are  that  the  publication  of  the  documents 
of  the  society  called  forth  a  storm  of  opposition  and  denun- 
ciation that  was  in  truth  overwhelming ;  orthodox,  conserv- 
atives, moderates,  reformers,  all  joined  in  reprehending 
the  presumption  of  this  handful  of  men  whose  address  and 
declaration  showed  how  illy  prepared  they  were  for  the 
task  they  had  undertaken,  and  how  inadequately  they 
tmderstood  the  true  import  of  Jewish  development.  The 
thunders  of  the  opposition  sounded  from  all  quarters;  the 
rabbis,— from  Holdheim, *  Geiger,  and  Einhorn,  the  re- 
formers, to  Trier  and  Ettlinger,  the  uncompromisingly 

1  Except  in  the  circumcision  controversy  in  which  Holdheim  sup- 
ported the  position  assumed  by  members  of  the  society,  infra. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     169 

orthodox,— wrote  in  criticism  and  disparagement;  the 
society  found  but  one  sympathizer  and  defender  among 
the  rabbis,  M.  Hess  of  Saxe- Weimar.  But  not  only  among 
the  rabbis  was  this  resistance  met  with ;  the  most  prominent 
layman  in  all  Germany  was  Gabriel  Riesser ;  as  soon  as  he 
became  acquainted  with  the  three  points  of  the  declaration 
he  announced  his  unalterable  opposition  in  a  letter  to  Stern ; 
although  an  active  and  enthusiastic  advocate  of  religious 
reform,  he  declared  the  Frankfort  movement  a  step  back- 
ward rather  than  a  step  forward.  He  feared  also  the  im- 
pression that  the  paragraphs  of  the  declaration  would  make 
upon  the  general  public;  the  first  he  considered  a  mere 
phrase ;  the  second  and  third  were  simple  retorts  upon  the 
watchwords  of  Judaeophobia.  He  despised  this  tendency 
"for  it  does  not  serve  the  truth;  its  only  purpose  is  the 
effect  it  may  produce  upon  the  civic  authorities. ' ' 1  Stern 
answered  him  at  length,  but  I  pass  this  answer  by  for  the 
present  since  I  shall  give  at  length  his  elaborate  defense  of 
the  society  which  appeared  some  time  later ; 2  Riesser  found 
no  time  to  reply  to  Stern,  but  that  he  had  not  been  con- 
vinced appears  from  the  fact  that  when  the  affairs  of  the 
society  became  a  matter  of  newspaper  comment  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1843,  and  Stern  and  Riesser  were  named  as  its  chief 
sponsors,  Riesser  denied  this  statement  publicly  and  de- 
clared his  opposition  to  the  society. 3  The  most  striking 
attacks  upon  the  organization  were  made  by  Leopold  Stem, 
rabbi  in  Burgkunstadt,  Bavaria,  and  elected  rabbi  of 

1Isler,    Gabriel  Eiesser's  Leben,   nebst   Mittheilungen   aus  seinen 
Brief  en,  I,  358-9. 

2  The   society   itself    answered   its    critics  in    an   official   document 
dated  December,  1843,  and  signed  by  Dr.  Neukirch  in  the  name  of  the 
members  of  the  society.     The  statements  in  the  document  are  quite 
the  same  as  those  made  by  Stern,  and  given  at  length  in  the  course 
of  this  article.     See  Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland  (1844), 
pp.  116-22;  see  also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  vol.  VIII  (1844),  no.  1,  p.  5;  Orient, 
vol.  V  (1844),  no.  6,  p.  43. 

3  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VH  (1843),  no,  33. 


170  THE  EEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Frankfort  in  March,  1844, *  M.  Gutmann,  rabbi  in  Red- 
witz, 2  S.  D.  Luzzato, 3  David  Einhorn, 4  Michael  Sachs, 5 
Zacharias  Frankel, 6  and  by  many  others  whose  opinions 
were  published  in  the  collection  of  responses  gathered  by 
the  old  rabbi  of  Frankfort,  Solomon  Abraham  Trier,  and 
which  will  receive  extended  notice  in  the  course  of  this 
chapter,  when  the  attitude  of  the  society  on  the  circumcision 
question  will  be  considered.  The  most  notable  defense 
was  that  of  M.  A.  Stern  in  answer  to  the  attacks  of  Stein, 
Gutmann,  Einhorn,  Hirsch,  and  Mannheimer;  the  society 
was  also  defended  by  M.  Hess  in  five  leading  articles  in  his 
newspaper. 7  In  these  articles  he  applauds  the  act  of  the 
founders  of  the  society;  he  states  that  the  Jews  have  ad- 
vanced, but  not  Judaism,  and  that  official  Judaism  is  at 
fault,  that  life  calls  for  reforms,  and  that  this  declaration 
is  the  first  evidence  that  enlightened  Jews  have  given  of  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  situation.  He  defends  the 
society  from  the  chief  charges  that  had  been  made  against 
it;  these  charges  were  that  the  three  paragraphs  of  the 
Declaration  are  not  far-reaching  enough;  that  they  are 
only  negative  (thus  Frankel  called  them  "articles  of  unbe- 
lief," and  Einhorn  "a  confession  of  unbelief")  ;  that  they 
were  indefinite;  that  the  third  paragraph  discredits  the 

1  * '  Der    Frankfurter    Eeformverein    vom    Standpunkte    des    f ort- 
schreitenden   Eabbinismus, ' f   Literaturblatt    des    Orients,    1843,    nos. 
46-8. 

2  Hid.,  1844,  nos.  1  and  2.  s  Ibid.,  1843,  no.  51. 

4  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  no.  7. 

5  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  religiosen  Inter essen  des  Judenthums,  I  (1844), 
49-60. 

6  Hid.,  60-72.     Frankel  opens  his  article  by  saying  that  the  society 
11  cannot  be  considered  Jewish,  and  belongs  to  Judaism  as  little  as  to 
any  other  religion, ' '  and  closes  by  declaring  that  ' '  the  reform  society 
is  the  most  unfortunate  attempt  that  has  ever  been  made.     It  has 
condemned  itself  and  has  been  condemned  by  public  opinion";   see 
also  ibid.,  302,  where  he  says  "they  were  honest  in  their  method,  but 
their  method  was  not  that  of  Judaism." 

TI.  AT.  J.,  IV  (1843),  183,  187,  191,  195,  and  203. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     171 

patriotism  of  Jews  who  still  believe  in  the  personal  Messiah 
and  the  return  to  Palestine :  and  lastly,  that  it  was  fathered 
altogether  by  laymen  and  non-theologians,  while  theolo- 
gians alone  could  and  should  inaugurate  such  a  movement. 
I  cannot  stop  to  give  Hess's  reply  to  these  charges  and 
criticisms,  notably  as  I  feel  that  space  should  be  given 
primarily  to  the  defense  of  M.  A.  Stern  which  also  answered 
these  points.  The  open  letters  of  Stern  written  in  answer 
to  the  attacks  upon  the  society  by  Rabbis  Stein  and  Gut- 
mann  are  the  most  remarkable  literary  product  of  the  agita- 
tion called  forth  by  the  formation  of  the  Reform  Society.  * 
He  takes  up  the  criticisms  of  Stein  and  Gutmann  point  for 
point  and  answers  them  without  reserve,  often  sharply, 
sarcastically,  and  caustically.  A  brief  resume  of  his  argu- 
ment makes  unnecessary  the  separate  quoting  of  the  ob- 
jections of  Stein  and  Gutmann,  as  these  are  indicated 
sufficiently  in  the  reply.  The  first  letters  are  addressed  to 
Stein.  The  reason  for  laymen  taking  the  initiative  was 
that  rabbis  had  not  done  so,  although  they  had  bewailed 
frequently  the  sorry  condition  of  affairs  in  Judaism  and  had 
declared  reform  absolutely  necessary.2  The  Reform  Society, 
inspired  by  these  statements,  had  taken  the  bold  plunge,  but 
had  indicated  in  its  declaration  only  the  absolutely  neces- 
sary doctrines  that  would  appeal  to  the  contemporary  gen- 
eration as  expressing  the  idea  of  development  in  Judaism. 3 
In  answer  to  Stein's  designation  of  them  as  reformers  he 
says,  "We  are  not  reformers;  we  could  not  and  would  not 
be.  We  are  merely  reformed ;  the  age,  advanced  intelligence, 
possibly  also  progressive  rabbinism,  are  the  reformers.  We 

1  The  open  letters  to  Einhorn,  Hirsch,  and  Mannheimer  in  Nos. 
6-8  of  vol.  VI  of  the  Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts  consist 
for  the  most  part  of  mere  personalities,  and  therefore  I  dismiss  them 
with  this  reference;  they  were  the  third  series  of  open  letters;  the 
first  two  series  to  Stein  and  Gutmann  contain  the  gist  of  the  defense. 

2 1.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  174.  See  also  M.  Creizenach,  Des  frommen 
Israeliten  Lehre  und  Leben,  ibid.,  II,  21. 

'/.  A'.  J.,  V  (1844),  175. 


172  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

desire  to  make  no  proselytes;  we  wish  to  induce  no  one, 
who  is  not  of  a  like  opinion  with  us,  to  join  us;  we  have 
merely  called  upon  such  who  think  as  we  do  to  combine 
with  us.  Therefore  the  'Declaration'  is  drawn  up  in  such 
a  way  as  to  express  our  individual  view. " 1  As  for  the 
third  paragraph  concerning  the  Messiah,  rabbis  had  said 
the  same  thing  time  and  time  again,  and  Stein  does  not 
even  advert  to  this  paragraph  in  his  criticism,  hence  he 
must  agree  with  it. 2 

"As  to  the  second  declaration  Stein  does  not  argue;  he 
simply  accuses  us  of  not  knowing  the  Talmud;"  Stern 
answers  sarcastically,  and  enters  a  fiat  denial  claiming 
that  they  do  know  the  Talmud;  this,  however,  is  not  to 
the  point ;  the  point  is  the  authority  of  the  Talmud.  ' '  The 
Talmud  shall  receive  acknowledgment  for  all  that  is  of 
value  in  it.  We  have  denied  only  its  authority,  not  its 
historical  value. "  3  It  is  the  first  paragraph  of  the  Declara- 
tion, however,  that  has  been  made  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the 
hostile  attacks;  and  yet,  what  does  it  say?— That  the  mem- 
bers of  the  society  recognize  in  Mosaism  the  possibility  of 
unlimited  development ;  what  does  this  imply  but  the  prin- 
ciple of  reform?  something  which  progressive  rabbinism, 
the  religious  standpoint  of  Stein,  has  declared  time  and 
again.  4 

Stern  then  discusses  the  permanent  element  in  Judaism ; 
this  is  certainly  not  the  ceremonies  as  progressive  rabbin- 
ism  has  stated  often,  certainly  not  the  belief  in  miracles, 
certainly  not  metaphysical  truths  which  are  rare  in  the 
Bible.  ' '  What  then  is  the  permanent  element  in  Judaism  ? 
Nothing  else  is  unchangeably  permanent  except  the  glorious 
idea  of  its  world-embracing  destiny  to  which  its  whole 
history  bears  witness,  nothing  else  but  its  divine  mission 
to  develop  within  itself  the  belief  in  God  and  to  spread  this 
over  the  whole  earth.  Therefore,  too,  it  must  be  able  to 
appreciate  the  ideas  of  all  ages  and  the  conditions  of  all 

1I.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  179.      2/6id,  180.      •  Ibid.,  181.      *  Ibid.,  188. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     173 

places;  therefore  it  must  not  be  limited  by  any  temporal 
institution.  ...  It  must  eliminate  all  institutions  that 
have  outlived  their  usefulness,  and  must  bear  within  itself 
the  possibility  of  unlimited  development."  The  Reform 
Society  considered  it  a  bounden  duty  to  give  expression  to 
this  thought ;  it  is  a  jewel  which  has  been  recovered  out  of 
stunted  rabbinical  Judaism. 1 

The  purpose  of  the  Reform  Society  was  simply  to  make 
this  general  declaration,  not  to  carry  it  out  in  practical 
reforms  as  applicable  to  special  Mosaic  laws;  this  is  to  be 
the  work  of  the  rabbis.  Some  of  the  members  of  the  society, 
the  writer  among  them,  wished  to  go  farther  and  specify 
certain  Mosaic  institutions  that  have  outlived  their  original 
significance,  but  the  majority  decided  otherwise  on  the 
ground  that  their  chief  purpose  was  to  gain  the  adherence 
of  all  who  believe  in  the  principle  that  Mosaism  is  capable 
of  unlimited  development.  2 

In  answer  to  Stein's  question  in  what  the  society  was 
specifically  Jewish,  and  whether  the  most  orthodox  Chris- 
tian or  Moslem  could  not  become  a  member,  he  says  that 
the  first  paragraph  shows  that  this  is  impossible,  because 
neither  Christian  nor  Moslem  believes  in  the  possibility  of 
the  unlimited  development  of  Mosaism,  holding  as  they  do 
that  a  new  revelation  was  necessary  for  the  salvation  of 
mankind. 3 

He  denies  the  statement  made  frequently  at  that  time 
that  Bruno  Bauer 's  essay  on  the  Jewish  question 4  was 

17.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  190. 

3  Ibid.  'Ibid.,  197. 

'"Die  Judenf rage, ' '  in  Deutsche  Jahrbucher  for  Nov.  1842;  pub- 
lished separately,  Brunswick,  1843.  This  anti-Semitic  essay  was  one 
of  the  literary  and  journalistic  sensations  of  that  day,  and  elicited 
many  replies  from  Jews;  the  claim  of  the  enemies  of  the  Eeform 
Society  that  this  essay  gave  the  impulse  to  its  formation  rested  with- 
out doubt  upon  the  passage  of  the  essay  in  which  Bauer  comments 
upon  the  statement  of  the  advocates  of  the  emancipation  of  the  Jews 
that  they  desire  to  return  to  pure  Mosaism;  he  declares  this  to  be 


174      THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  direct  cause  of  the  formation  of  the  society.  The 
deliberations  looking  to  its  formation  began  in  September, 
1842;  in  the  beginning  of  November  the  writer  had  com- 
municated with  Dr.  Riesser  on  the  subject,  and  Bauer's 
essay  did  not  appear  till  several  weeks  later. 1 

He  meets  Stein's  charge  that  the  doings  of  the  society 
retarded  the  civil  emancipation  of  the  orthodox  Jews,  by 
saying:  "if  you  demand  that  we  shall  not  retard  your 
civil  emancipation  we  may  demand  certainly  with  equal 
justice  that  you  should  not  interfere  with  our  spiritual 
emancipation,  for  what  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for 
the  gander.  We  are  not  enacting  a  farce,  nor  is  our  society 
a  mere  matter  of  convenience  that  we  will  abandon  at  your 
desire;  we  have  a  sacred  duty  to  fulfill  which  is  nothing 
less  than  to  extricate  ourselves  from  a  thoroughly  false 
religious  situation. ' ' 2 

Stein  had  averred  that  the  paragraphs  of  the  Declaration 
were  purely  negative ;  Stern  retorts  by  calling  upon  him  to 
show  the  way  and  to  give  them  something  positive,  forti- 
fied with  ' '  reasons  taken  not  from  policy,  but  from  Jewish 
theology,  with  reasons  that  do  not  presuppose  the  authority 
of  the  Talmud,  and  which  would  therefore  not  satisfy  us. '  '3 
He  denies  that  he  is  the  author  of  the  official  documents 
of  the  society,  and  claims  that  he  saw  them  only  after  they 
were  published ; 4  he  closes  with  accusing  the  progressive 
rabbis,  among  whom  Stein  classed  himself,  of  cowardice 
and  with  wishing  to  conciliate  both  parties,  and  hence  with 
having  no  definite  principles.  "You  and  all  who  share 

senseless,  since  Mosaism  means  sacrifice,  priestly  caste,  and  peculiar 
property  legislation;  its  logical  consequence  is  the  Talmud;  both  Old 
Testament  and  Talmud  are  chimerical  and  unreal;  emancipation  will 
be  impossible  until  the  Jews  cease  to  be  Jews  and  become  men, — 
in  other  words,  "when  they  become  in  reality  men  who  will  not 
permit  themselves  to  be  separated  from  their  fellow-men  by  any 
barrier  mistakenly  considered  essential." 

'I.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  198. 

2J6id.,  199.  'IZnd.,  200.  «76id,  201. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     175 

your  opinions  are  greatly  mistaken,"  thus  he  addresses 
Stein  in  taking  leave  of  the  subject,  "y°u  will  never  suc- 
ceed in  conciliating  the  orthodox  party ;  they  will  use  you 
against  progress  so  long  as  you  permit  yourselves  to  be 
used ;  but  the  moment  you  presume  to  act  against  their  will 
you  will  be  damned.  The  orthodox  know  full  well  that 
they  cannot  surrender  one  iota  without  endangering  their 
whole  position.  You  will  alienate  more  and  more  the  cul- 
tured and  progressive  elements  because  you  refuse  to  sat- 
isfy the  demands  of  culture,  inasmuch  as  your  practical 
reforms  restrict  themselves  to  a  few  changes  in  the  service. 
....  What  is  the  gain  of  such  a  scarcely  perceptible  ad- 
vance? Is  this  the  only  factor,  the  only  institution  in 
which  salvation  is  to  be  found,  or  is  it  not  rather  in  the 
purified  religious  consciousness  for  whose  edification  the 
external  institutions  will  adapt  themselves  of  necessity? 
....  If  you  are  not  possessed  of  courage,  then  be  con- 
tent to  lose  yourselves  among  the  crowd,  and  do  not  aspire 
to  leadership :  least  of  all  should  you  glorify  your  faint- 
heartedness as  the  correct  policy  and  call  the  courageous 
foolhardy.  Let  him  who  is  cowardly  and  faint-hearted 
turn  back  and  go  to  his  home.  Judaism  will  fulfill  its  mis- 
sion without  you  and  in  spite  of  you;  help  and  salvation 
will  come  from  another  place."  1 

In  his  open  letter  to  Gutmann,  Stern  discusses  first  the 
Messianic  question,  and  shows  how  the  hope  for  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  has  developed  in  Judaism:  he  challenges 
Gutmann 's  statement  that  this  hope  runs  like  a  red  thread 
through  the  Bible ;  the  Pentateuch  says  nothing  concerning 
it,  nor  do  many  of  the  prophets :  it  is  a  late  growth  on  the 
stem  of  Jewish  thought,  and  thousands  of  the  present  gen- 
eration have  repudiated  it;  this  being  the  case,  how  can 
they  utter  the  prayers  supplicating  for  the  coming  of  a 
Messiah  and  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem;  such  prayer  is 
really  blasphemy,  for  it  is  equivalent  to  uttering  a  false- 

1Z.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  209. 


176  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

hood;  "if  we  make  supplication  to  God  for  something  the 
direct  opposite  of  which  we  wish  for  in  our  hearts,  what 
is  this  but  a  mockery  ?  does  it  not  change  prayer,  the  purest 
relation  of  man  to  God,  into  shocking  blasphemy  ? "  1  He 
therefore  declares  that  he  will  cease  to  attend  the  syna- 
gogue as  long  as  these  conditions  exist  unless  forced  to  do 
so  by  law,  a  possible  contingency  in  view  of  certain  pro- 
posed strange  legislation.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
Reform  Society  to  institute  a  service  which  will  express  the 
honest  convictions  of  the  Jew  of  to-day.  He  calls  upon  the 
rabbis  to  revise  the  prayer-book  as  proposed  by  the  rab- 
binical conference  just  held  at  Brunswick, 2  and  to  elimi- 
nate altogether  those  prayers  which  are  at  variance  with  the 
people's  belief;  "the  attempt  has  been  made,  it  is  true, 
to  eliminate  some  of  these  prayers,  but  is  a  lie  less  a  lie 
because  it  is  uttered  once  instead  of  ten  times  ? "  3 

Since  the  authority  of  the  Talmud  was  repudiated,  the 
Bible  was  accepted  naturally  as  the  all-important  authority ; 
but  the  letter  of  the  Bible  is  dead  like  every  letter,  and 
becomes  living  only  if  it  receives  the  breath  of  the  spirit ; 
it  requires  human  interpretation.  4  The  meaning  of  the 
first  paragraph  of  the  Declaration  is  this :  ' '  the  progressive 
development  of  mankind  is  unlimited;  if  Judaism  is  to 
keep  pace  with  this,  if  it  is  to  share  in  the  shaping  of  the 
future  of  mankind,  i.  e.,  if  it  is  not  to  pass  away,  it  must 
contain  within  itself  the  possibility  of  unlimited  develop- 
ment. This  is  the  plain  meaning  of  the  first  paragraph  of 
our  Declaration. ' ' 5 

There  must  be  development  in  religion;  the  divine  is 
perfect,  it  is  true,  but  it  must  accommodate  itself  to  human 
imperfection ;  hence  a  command  suitable  for  one  age  may 
be  outgrown  by  a  subsequent  age;  thus,  blood-revenge  is 
sanctioned  in  the  Bible;  but  this  does  not  mean  that  all 
future  ages  must  regard  this  primitive  institution  as  sacred. 

1I.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  287.  2  June  12-19,  1844. 

8 1.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  287.  *  Hid.,  290.  'Ibid.,  294. 


FBANKFOBT  SOCIETY  OF  FBIENDS  OF  BEFOBM     177 

"Mankind  outgrows  laws  which  were  formulated  for  earlier 
imperfect  stages  of  civilization  as  a  child  outgrows  its 
clothes;  the  law  ceases  to  be  operative  of  itself  as  soon  as 
the  conditions  that  gave  it  birth  cease.  Hence  if  we  do 
not  wish  to  surrender  the  sublime  conception  of  the  con- 
tinual progress  of  mankind,  we  will  have  to  concede  that 
religion,  the  expression  of  the  human  cognition  of  God, 
must  keep  pace  with  this  progressive  development. ' ' 1  He 
proceeds  to  explain  the  purpose  of  the  Reform  Society: 
"Away  with  all  explanations  that  simply  introduce  new 
shackles  of  the  law  in  place  of  the  old  ones;  let  us  thank 
God  that  Judaism  has  no  dogmas;  away  with  attempts  at 
compromise  in  this  our  time,  in  which  scarcely  any  two 
persons  think  alike  in  religious  matters.  What  we  can  and 
should  do  is  to  clear  away  that  which  is  dead;  for  this  we 
should  unite  in  active  endeavor,— this  is  the  purpose  of  the 
Reform  Society. ' ' 2  Gutmann  had  charged  that  the  Re- 
form Society  denied  divine  revelation;  Stern  replies  with 
a  definition  of  revelation  as  the  progressive  advance  of  the 
spirit  of  man;  belief  in  the  literal  revelation  as  described 
in  the  Bible,  Exod.  xxix.-xxi.,  is  not  defended  by  any  but 
the  most  orthodox;  the  least  rationalizing  of  this  passage 
would  lay  any  one  open  to  the  charge  directed  against  the 
Reform  Society,  and  surely  Gutmann  would  not  defend 
the  literal  acceptance  of  this  passage  which  states  that  God 
descended  upon  Mount  Sinai,  that  he  spoke,  that  the  elders 
saw  God,  that  Moses  approached  God,  etc.,  and  continues, 
"It  must  be  proved  whether  the  positive  element  of  Juda- 
ism consists  of  stories  or  of  its  history  (in  Geschichten  oder 
in  seiner  Geschichte)  of  the  manner  in  which  it  grew,  or 
of  that  which  it  became ; ' ' 3  he  demands  from  Gutmann 
a  statement  as  to  whether  he  accepts  this  passage  of  Exodus 

1 L  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  296.  'Ifctd,  297. 

«"Es    muss    sich    zeigen,    ob    das    Positive    des    Judenthums    in 
Geschichten  oder  in  seiner  Geschichte,  in  der  Art,  wie  es  geworden, 
oder  in  dem,  was  es  geworden,  besteht."     Ibid.,  304. 
12 


178  THE  EEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

literally;  if  he  does  not  he  occupies  the  same  platform  as 
the  Reform  Society. 

Despite  this  spirited  and  full  defense  the  society,  one 
might  almost  say,  "died  a-borning."  Yet  although  it 
proved  so  flat  and  well-nigh  complete  a  failure  as  a  prac- 
tical organization,  and  although  its  founders  did  not  grasp 
or  comprehend  the  true  significance  of  the  development  of 
Judaism,  one  point  cannot  be  denied,  nor  may  it  be  over- 
looked, and  that  is  that  the  Frankfort  Reform  Society  was 
an  honest  attempt  to  make  open  declaration  of  the  senti- 
ments that  were  entertained  by  a  large  section  of  Jews. 
Reform  was  an  accomplished  fact  in  the  lives  and  thoughts 
of  thousands;  the  commands  of  traditional  Judaism  were 
not  observed  by  them;  Judaism  had  entered  upon  a  new 
stage;  the  Reform  Society  was  a  sign  of  the  times;  its 
promoters  wished  to  square  profession  with  practice.  That 
their  Declaration  was  inadequate  and  their  method  ill- 
chosen,  that  their  procedure  was  violent  instead  of  ordered, 
that  they  simply  negatived  instead  of  building  up  from  a 
sure  and  positive  foundation,  that  they  represented  revolu- 
tion rather  than  reform, 1  schism  rather  than  continuous 
development,  may  not  blind  our  eyes  to  the  all-important 
merits  of  honesty  of  intention  and  recognition  of  the  true 
state  of  affairs  in  Jewry. 2  But  their  action  was  little  more 
than  a  spasmodic  outburst ;  the  three  articles  of  their  creed 
evince  all  the  limitation  of  their  thought,  and  their  failure 

1  See  A.  Eebenstein  's  remarkable  article  ' '  Unsere  Gegenwart ' '  in 
Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  II,  13  ff.,  22  ff.     This  and 
the  article  by  Dr.  S.  Holdheim  having  the  same  title  (ibid.,  149-71), 
are  two  most  striking  statements  of  the  condition  of  religious  affairs 
among  the  Jews  of  Germany  at  this  stirring  time,  and  of  the  true 
meaning  and  purpose  of  reform. 

2  See  the  letter  of  Dr.  Theodor  Creizenach,  one  of  the  founders  of 
the  society,  written  on  Sept.  2,  1843,  to  Dr.  Wilhelm  Freund,  the 
editor  of  the  magazine  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  and  published 
in  Vol.  II  of  the  same,  pp.  175-8;  also  the  editorial  article  on  the 
purpose  of  the  society,  in  I.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  161. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     179 

to  grasp  the  true  idea  of  development  in  Judaism,  which  is 
the  key-stone  in  the  arch  of  reform.  This  appears  clearly 
and  unmistakably  from  the  first  two  paragraphs  of  the 
Declaration,  viz.,  the  cry  "back  to  Mosaism,"  and  the 
repudiation  of  the  Talmud.  It  was  fashionable  in  those 
days  for  anti-rabbinical  and  anti-Talmudical  Jews  to  affect 
the  style  and  title  of  professors  of  the  Mosaic  Faith 
(Bekenner  des  mosaischen  Glaubens),  indicating  thus  their 
hostile  attitude  towards  the  Talmud ; *  this  earned  for  them 
the  soubriquets  of  Mosaites  and  Protestant  Jews,  for  it  was 
claimed  that  theirs  was  an  attitude  similar  to  that  taken 
by  the  Protestants  of  the  Reformation  period  in  the  history 
of  Christianity;  viz.,  the  acceptance  of  the  Bible  and  the 
repudiation  of  all  subsequent  tradition.  Now  the  true 
knowledge  of  Judaism  makes  it  clear  that  the  Books  of 
Moses  and  the  remaining  writings  preserved  in  the  Bible 
represent  stages  in  the  development  of  Judaism,  as  do  the 
literary  remains  of  every  succeeding  era;  the  Bible  made 
Judaism  as  little  as  did  the  Talmud ;  Judaism  brought  forth 
the  books  of  the  Bible  as  well  as  the  Talmud,  and  all  other 
products  of  the  Jewish  spirit.  Hence  it  is  an  utter  mis- 
understanding of  Judaism  to  disregard  any  phase  of  its 
development ;  each  age  had  its  needs  and  met  them  as  well 
as  it  could ;  the  Talmud  and  the  codes  served  their  purpose 
in  the  outworking  of  the  faith,  as  well  as  did  the  Biblical 
books ;  what  is  true  in  any  is  eternal ;  what  was  temporary 
in  any  was  for  special  times  and  circumstances,  but  from 
all  as  from  every  expression  of  the  spirit  of  Judaism  true 
reform  draws  its  inspiration.  It  is  folly  to  limit  the  pos- 
sibilities of  Judaism  to  the  content  of  Mosaism;  it  is  folly 
no  less  to  attempt  to  erase  from  the  record  the  centuries 
marked  by  the  rise  and  rule  of  Talmudism ;  every  mode  of 
expression  that  Judaism  has  assumed,  Mosaism,  prophet- 
ism,  Talmudism,  rabbinism,  even  cabbalism,  contributes  its 

1  See  five  leading  articles  entitled  ' '  Der  reine  Mosaismus ' '  (Pure 
Mosaism),  in  I.  N,  J.,  II  (1841),  1,  5,  9,  13,  17, 


180  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

quota  to  the  understanding  of  the  essentials;  each  repre- 
sents the  fitting  of  the  eternal  elements  of  the  faith  to  par- 
ticular circumstances ;  this  is  the  principle  at  the  root  of  the 
reform  movement,  and  therefore  those  who  interpreted  it 
correctly  defined  it  as  a  new  phase  in  the  age-long  develop- 
ment, a  new  aspect  produced  by  the  new  revelation  of  God 
in  the  unfolding  of  the  ages. 1  This  the  Frankfort  reform- 
ers failed  utterly  to  grasp.  The  third  paragraph  of  their 

1Holdheim  particularly  gave  expression  to  this  thought.  I  repro- 
duce several  of  his  significant  statements  on  the  subject:  "The 
present  requires  a  principle  that  shall  enunciate  clearly  that  a  law, 
even  though  divine,  is  potent  only  so  long  as  the  conditions  and 
circumstances  of  life,  to  meet  which  it  was  enacted,  continue;  when 
these  change,  however,  the  law  also  must  be  abrogated,  even  though 
it  have  God  for  its  author.  For  God  himself  has  shown  indubitably 
that  with  the  change  of  the  circumstances  and  conditions  of  life 
for  which  he  once  gave  those  laws,  the  laws  themselves  cease  to  be 
operative,  that  they  shall  be  observed  no  longer,  because  they  can  be 
observed  no  longer.  .  .  .  The  present  age  and  its  guiding  principle, 
as  thus  formulated,  recognize  the  working  of  God  in  history;  it 
believes  truly  and  firmly  in  the  providential  guidance  of  the  fortunes 
of  mankind;  it  looks  upon  the  deeds  recorded  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind as  the  deeds  of  God,  whereby  he  speaks  as  clearly  as  he  ever 
did;  a  particular  revelation  of  God  to  a  single  person  is  dispensable 
when  God  speaks  to  all  and  reveals  his  will  to  all"  (Freund's  Zur 
Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  II,  165  f.).  "True  reform  can  rest 
only  on  the  recognition  of  the  truth  that  God  commanded  certain 
laws  for  certain  times  and  certain  conditions  of  life,  and  that  it 
would  be  acting  against  the  divine  will  to  fulfill  the  law  by  a  forced 
and  casuistical  interpretation  of  its  meaning  after  the  conditions 
have  changed  so  essentially  as  to  preclude  the  carrying-out  of  the 
law  in  its  correct  and  original  significance."  Ibid.  Salomon  put 
this  same  idea  in  a  most  striking  way  at  the  Conference  of  Eabbis 
held  at  Brunswick  in  1844,  when  he  said,  ' '  The  age  also  is  a  Bible 
through  whose  mouth  God  speaks  to  Israel"  ("auch  die  Zeit  sei  eine 
Bibel,  durch  deren  Mund  Gott  zu  Israel  spricht"),  ProtoJcolle  der 
ersten  Rabbinerversammlung,  91,  Braunschweig,  1844;  cf.  also 
Geiger,  in  a  communication  to  the  Directory  of  the  Breslau  congre- 
gation, March  19,  1846,  "What  the  spirit  of  history  wherein  God 
reveals  himself  also,  removes  and  has  buried,  no  human  skill  can 
reawaken  and  reanimate."  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  190. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     181 

Declaration  repudiating  the  belief  in  the  personal  Messiah 
and  the  return  to  Palestine,  was  correct  in  itself  as  a  tenet 
of  the  reform  movement,  but  should  have  been  merely  one 
of  a  number  of  statements  instead  of  being  posited  as  the 
only  special  declaration,  the  other  two  paragraphs  being  of 
a  general  character. 

The  almost  unanimous  disapproval  of  the  society  was 
justified  by  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  it  takes  its  place  in 
the  history  of  the  reform  movement,  not  for  any  full  and 
rounded  interpretation  it  gave  of  the  purpose  of  this  move- 
ment, but  as  one  of  the  significant  births  of  that  period  of 
travail,  the  fifth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Still 
it  is  quite  possible  that  this  Reform  Society  would  not  have 
been  the  storm  centre  of  so  fierce  a  tempest  had  it  confined 
itself  to  the  theoretical  statements  comprised  in  its  pro- 
gram, and  not  become  identified  with  the  agitation  that 
shook  the  Frankfort  community  from  centre  to  circum- 
ference in  connection  with  the  circumcision  question.  This 
it  was  which  really  roused  its  opponents.  As  mentioned 
above,  the  first  draft  of  the  Declaration  contained  five 
paragraphs,  the  third  of  which  asserted  that  the  members 
of  the  society  do  not  consider  circumcision  binding,  either 
as  a  religious  act  or  symbol.  Although  this  paragraph  was 
eliminated  from  the  final  draft,  it  expressed  the  convictions 
of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  society,  and  when  an 
instance  really  occurred  of  a  father  neglecting  to  have  his 
child  circumcised,1  the  excitement  aroused  in  the  commu- 
nity knew  no  bounds. 2 

1  This  man  was  not  a  member  of  the  Reform  Society,  but  his  action 
was  in  sympathy  with  the  expressed  views  of  the  members  of  the 
society;  therefore  the  society  was  made  the  target  for  the  shafts 
of  the  opposition.  It  was  not  long  before  a  second  similar  case  of 
neglect  to  have  the  rite  performed  occurred,  and  this  time  the  offend- 
ing father  was  a  member  of  the  society.  I.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  24. 

3  At  this  time  an  anonymous  publication  appeared  entitled,  Cir- 
cumcision historically  and  dogmatically  considered,  by  Ben  Amithai 
(JJeber  die  Beschneidung  in  historischer  und  dogmatischer  Bezie- 


182  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  attention  of  the  sanitary  bureau  of  Frankfort  had 
been  called  to  the  fatal  outcome  of  a  number  of  cases  of 
circumcision;  in  order  to  prevent  such  mishaps  in  the 
future  this  bureau  promulgated  a  measure  placing  the 
circumcision  of  Jewish  children  under  the  direct  super- 
vision of  the  sanitary  office;  the  third  paragraph  of  this 
measure  ordered  that  * '  Israelitish  citizens  and  inhabitants, 
in  as  far  as  they  desire  to  have  their  children  circumcised 
(sofern  sie  ihre  Kinder  beschneiden  lassen  wollen),  may 
employ  only  persons  especially  appointed  to  perform  the 
rite  of  circumcision. ' '  Members  of  the  Reform  Society  and 
others  who  sympathized  with  them  interpreted  these  words 
to  mean  that  the  rite  of  circumcision  was  to  be  performed 
or  omitted  at  the  desire  of  the  father.  It  was  not  long  be- 
fore the  actual  occurrence  took  place  that  made  the  matter 
a  living  issue.  The  question  as  to  whether  circumcision 
was  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  entrance  into  Judaism  had 
been  discussed  at  the  meetings  of  the  Reform  Society.  Al- 
though it  is  true  that  at  the  time  the  agitation  broke  forth 
the  society  had  not  made  any  public  official  declaration  pro 
or  con  the  sentiments  of  its  members  were  well  known,  and 
it  became  identified  in  the  public  mind  with  the  anti-cir- 
cumcision agitation.  The  aged  rabbi  of  Frankfort,  Solomon 
Abraham  Trier,  believing  that  one  of  the  very  fundamen- 
tals of  Judaism  had  been  wantonly  disregarded  by  the  in- 
dividuals who  had  neglected  to  have  their  children  cir- 
cumcised, addressed  the  Senate  on  February  26,  1843,  call- 
ing the  attention  of  the  law-making  body  to  the  importance 
of  circumcision  from  the  religious  standpoint,  and  pointing 

hung) ;  this  publication  was  looked  upon  generally  as  a  pronounce- 
ment of  the  Reform  Society;  the  author  put  the  question,  "Is 
circumcision  an  absolute  condition  of  Judaism,  so  that  an  uncircum- 
cised  child  cannot  be  considered  a  Jew,  or  is  it  not?"  (p.  5).  He 
answered  the  question  in  the  negative,  and  suggested  another  method 
of  initiation  into  Judaism,  viz.,  a  solemn  declaration  by  the  father  in 
an  assembly  of  ten  Israelites,  that  he  desired  to  have  the  child  received 
into  the  covenant  made  by  God  with  Abraham  and  Moses. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     183 

out  the  dangers  that  would  threaten  the  integrity  of  the 
Jewish  community  were  the  performance  or  omission  of 
this  rite  to  be  left  to  the  caprice  of  the  individual  father ; 
he  therefore  requested  the  Senate  to  issue  a  definite  decla- 
ration that  should  counteract  the  effect  of  that  phrase  in  the 
regulation  of  the  sanitary  bureau,  which  had  been  seized 
upon  by  the  opponents  of  circumcision,  as  a  justification  of 
their  position,  the  phrase,  namely,  ' '  in  as  far  as  they  desire 
to  have  their  children  circumcised. ' '  The  Senate  answered 
him  on  March  10  by  saying  that  it  was  not  the  intention  of 
the  regulation  in  question  to  abolish  a  religious  ordinance 
of  the  Jews.  This,  however,  was  not  definite  enough,  and 
the  agitation  continued  unabated.  The  danger  of  calling 
in  the  aid  of  the  State  to  decide  upon  the  private  concerns 
of  a  religious  community,  was  pointed  out  by  clear  think- 
ers, but  the  old  rabbi  and  his  party  felt  that  the  very  ex- 
istence of  Judaism  was  imperiled,  and  hence  considered 
any  and  every  step  justified,  even  the  employment  of  force 
through  the  legislative  arm.  On  August  4  Trier  again 
appealed  to  the  Senate,  requesting  that  it  declare  that  no 
child  of  Jewish  parents  could  be  received  into  the  congre- 
gation as  a  co-religionist  unless  he  had  been  circumcised ;  he 
made  similar  representations  on  September  15  and  October 
31;  the  Senate  took  action  in  the  matter  on  February  13, 
1844,  by  expressing  its  regret  that  certain  members  of  the 
Jewish  community  gave  cause  for  complaint  to  their  co- 
religionists, and  by  stating  its  inability  to  take  the  step 
suggested  by  Trier. 1 

This  was  a  distinct  defeat  for  the  rabbinical  party,  and 
its  ill-advised  move  to  secure  the  support  of  the  civil  power 
against  the  nonconformists.  It  has  been  shown  above  2  how 
frequently  this  was  done  in  those  days;  certainly  nothing 
is  more  harmful  to  the  true  interests  of  religion  than  the 
use  of  force  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  govern - 

1I.  N.  J.,  V  (1844),  69,  74,  84. 
2  Supra,  34. 


184  THE  KEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

merit,  to  ensure  the  fulfillment  of  its  behests   and  com- 
mands. * 

Trier  did  not  confine  his  activity  to  these  attempts  to 
secure  governmental  interference.  He  addressed  also  a 
communication  to  the  rabbis  of  Europe  asking  for  their 
opinions  upon  the  Reform  Society,  and  upon  the  signifi- 
cance of  circumcision.  His  communication  appeared  as 
the  introduction  to  the  volume,  Rabbinical  Responses  on 
Circumcision. 2  He  speaks  of  the  Reform  Society  as 
schismatic,  and  as  masquerading  under  the  deceptive  guise 
of  reform,  but  as  being  in  reality  the  opponent  of  positive 
Judaism ;  he  denounces  it  as  a  new  sect 3  standing  outside 
the  pale  of  Judaism ; 4  he  pleads  for  the  preservation  of 
positive  Judaism  which  is  exposed  to  the  devastating  hurri- 
cane of  a  misunderstood  spirit  of  the  age ; 5  he  asks  for  an 
opinion  on  the  new  sect,  and  invites  suggestions  as  to  what 
measures  should  be  taken  against  such  as  refuse  to  have 
their  sons  circumcised  through  frivolity  and  unbelief.  The 
communication  was  sent  to  eighty  rabbis;  forty-one  re- 
sponses were  received,  and  twenty-eight  were  printed  in 
the  volume  designated ;  these  were  from  the  rabbis  Samson 
Raphael  Hirsch  of  Emden,  Nathan  Marcus  Adler  of  Han- 
over, Felsenstein  of  Hanau,  Lazar  Horwitz  of  Vienna,  Jacob 
Aaron  Ettlinger  of  Altona,  S.  Ullmann  of  Crefeld,  M. 
Wetzlar  of  Gudensberg,  Adler  of  Oberndorf,  Samuel 
Hirsch  of  Luxembourg,  Seligmann  Bar  Bamberger  of 
Wiirzburg,  A.  Wechsler  of  Schwabach,  H.  Aub  of  Munich, 
S.  D.  Luzzatto  of  Padua,  I.  N.  Mannheimer  of  Vienna,  L. 
Adler  of  Kissingen,  S.  L.  Rapoport  of  Prague,  A.  A.  Wolff 
of  Copenhagen,  B.  H.  Auerbach  of  Darmstadt,  B.  Levi  of 

*For  an  excellent  account  of  the  numerous  attempts  to  enlist  the 
aid  of  the  government  against  the  reformers  see  Jost,  Geschichte  der 
Israeliten,  X,  part  iii,  225-34. 

a  Babbinische  Gutachten  iiber  die  Beschneidung,  gesammelt  und 
herausgegeben  von  Salomon  Abraham  Trier.  Frankfurt  am  Main, 
1844. 

•Ibid.,  IX.  'Ibid.,  XIII.  .        •Ibid.,  VI. 


FRANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM     185' 

Giessen,  J.  Bamberger  of  Worms,  A.  Sutro  of  Miinster,  J. 
Lowenstein  of  Gailingen,  S.  Fiirst  of  Heidelberg,  H.  Traub 
of  Mannheim,  Wassermann  of  Miihringen,  L.  Schott  of 
Randegg,  J.  Mecklenburg  of  Konigsberg,  and  H.  Schwarz 
of  Hiirben.  All  of  these  responses  took  strong  ground  in 
favor  of  circumcision;  in  fact  it  was  stated  that  all  the 
responses  which  had  been  received  were  uncompromisingly 
and  unreservedly  opposed  to  the  Reform  Society  and  its 
position.  This  was  not  quite  in  accordance  with  the  facts 
in  the  case,  for  the  response  of  Rabbi  Elias  Grunebaum  was 
suppressed  because  of  the  difference  of  his  views  with  those 
of  the  rabbi  of  Frankfort. *  Zunz  also  wrote  a  response 
which  was,  however,  not  included  in  the  volume,  but  was 
published  separately. 2  In  this  the  great  scholar  took 
positive  ground  against  the  abolition  of  the  rite ;  he  warns 
against  heresy  trials  and  ecclesiastical  penalties;  he  urges 
that  the  father,  who  fails  to  have  his  son  circumcised,  con- 
tinue to  be  recognized  as  a  Jew;  he  would  not  have  the 
synagogue  closed  to  him  nor  give  him  pain,  although  he 
give  pain  to  others.  But  circumcision  is  of  the  very  essence 
of  Judaism.  It  is  not  a  ceremony  but  an  institution;  not 
the  act  of  circumcising  but  the  being  circumcised  is  the 
kernel  of  the  command.  Other  acts  take  place  frequently 
in  life ;  if  neglected  they  can  be  atoned  for  and  performed. 
In  this  case,  however,  a  single  omission  is  decisive,  and  the 
son  who  has  not  been  circumcised  by  his  father  because  of 
principle,  will  scarcely  remain  within  Judaism  for  princi- 
ple 's  sake.  It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  very  extensively  from 
the  opinions  contained  in  the  volume  published  by  Trier. 
Men  of  all  shades  of  thought  are  represented  in  the  volume ; 

1  This  response  was  published  in  I.  N.  J.,  V,  121-5,  129-32,  with  an 
editorial  footnote  that  it  had  been  suppressed  by  the  committee  that 
had  the  publication  of  the  responses  in  charge;  see  explanatory  state- 
ment of  the  committee,  ibid.,  176-7. 

2  The  response   has  been   included  in  the  edition  of  his  collected 
writings,  see  Gesammelte  Schriften  von  Dr.  Zunz,  II,  191-203.     Ber- 
lin, 1876. 


186  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Samuel  Hirsch  the  reformer,  Isaac  Noa  Mannheimer  the 
conservative,  and  Jacob  Aaron  Ettlinger  the  ultra-orthodox 
clasp  hands  in  agreement  upon  the  question  at  issue,  al- 
though their  reasons  may  not  be  the  same.  The  twenty- 
eight  responses  present  a  practical  unanimity  of  opinion 
to  the  effect  that  an  Israelite  who  denies  the  obligatory 
character  of  the  command  to  circumcise,  and  neglects  to 
have  his  son  circumcised  on  the  ground  that  he  does  not 
consider  it  essential  to  Judaism,  is  to  be  considered  a  denier 
of  the  divine  law,  and  a  destroyer  of  the  eternal  covenant. 
S.  R.  Hirsch  stated  that  by  such  declarations  and  acts,  they 
(the  members  of  the  Keform  Society)  have  cut  themselves 
loose  from  Judaism,  and  the  rabbi  of  the  community  to 
which  they  belong  must  treat  them  as  no  longer  members 
of  his  community;  they  are  apostates  (mumrim).1 

The  response  of  N.  M.  Adler,  rabbi  in  Hanover,  is  of 
interest  because  of  his  election  shortly  thereafter  as  chief 
rabbi  of  Great  Britain.  Adler  considers  the  question  from 
three  standpoints— the  Biblical,  the  historical,  and  the 
religio-philosophical ;  he  shows  that  although  commentators 
and  philosophers  may  have  differed  widely  as  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  circumcision,  this  one  explaining  it  as  a  symbol 
of  purification,  that  one  as  a  sign  of  priestly  selection, 
this  one  giving  it  a  social,  that  one  an  ethical,  and  a  third 
a  sanitary  interpretation,  yet  all  agreed  as  to  its  being  an 
absolute  requirement  for  the  Jew;  he  therefore  concludes 
that  the  one  who  disregards  the  command  is  an  apostate, 
and  incurs  all  the  sad  consequences  which  the  law  ordains 
in  the  case  of  apostates;  all  association  with  him  must 
cease ; 2  he  must  be  looked  upon  as  excluded  from  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel.  8 

The  renowned  scholar,  S.  D.  Luzzatto  of  Padua,  declared 
that  the  members  of  the  society  are  heretics  and  deniers  of 
the  Mosaic  Law,  and  that  according  to  their  own  confes- 

1  Bdbbinische  Gutachten  uber  die  Beschneidung,  4. 
8  Ibid.,  13.  'Ibid.,  14. 


FBANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FBIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     187 

sion  they  stand  without  the  pale  of  the  Jewish  religion. 
His  response,  however,  evinces  a  beautiful  spirit;  although 
positive  in  his  attitude  of  unfailing  opposition  to  the  Re- 
form Society,  and  although  he  opines  that  no  congrega- 
tional office  or  honor  should  be  bestowed  on  its  members, 
or  any  gift  or  offering  be  received  from  them,  yet  he 
recommends  leniency,  and  counsels  that  words  of  truth  and 
peace  be  addressed  to  them;  possibly  thereby  they  will  be 
induced  to  renounce  their  error  and  return  to  the  right 
path. 1 

The  Viennese  preacher,  I.  N.  Mannheimer,  disputes  the 
right  of  the  few  to  break  away  from  the  great  community ; 
Judaism  is  a  historical  system ;  it  rests  not  on  philosophy ; 
it  is  life,  it  is  experience;  it  is  made  up  of  a  thousand 
forces,  and  any  violent  action  such  as  this  of  the  Reform 
Society  is  treason  to  the  spirit  of  Judaism.  He  apostro- 
phizes the  Reform  Society  thus:  "Cut  yourselves  loose 
from  us !  you  have  nothing  in  common  with  us !  You  speak 
of  the  force  which  we  apply  to  you  and  to  your  conscience ; 
and  do  you  expect  us  to  submit  humbly  to  your  capricious 
procedure;  do  you  expect  for  one  instant  that  we  shall  or 
can  permit  that  each  and  every  one  shall  obey  or  disregard 
the  commands  of  our  religion  according  to  individual  whim 
or  caprice,  that  any  and  every  insignificant  or  irresponsible 
person  shall  arise  and  contemptuously  disregard  Talmud 
and  commentators  to-day,  and  Moses  and  the  prophets  to- 
morrow ? ' ' 2  Further  along  he  asserts  that  the  refusal  to 
have  a  child  circumcised  is  equivalent  to  a  renunciation  of 
the  covenant  of  God ; 8  he  declares  also  that  should  such  a 
case  occur  in  his  congregation,  he  would  not  admit  the  boy 
to  any  Jewish  function,  would  not  register  him  as  a  Jew, 
would  not  confirm  nor  marry  him,  nor  permit  him  to  be 
buried  in  a  Jewish  cemetery ;  in  Austria  no  Jewish  child  is 
registered  unless  circumcised.  * 

1  Eabbinische  Gvtachten  uber  die  Beschneidung,  77. 

*Ibid.,  99,  100.  'Ibid.,  101.  «IWd.,  102. 


188  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM. 

Finally  the  opinion  of  S.  L.  Rapoport,  the  celebrated 
scholar  and  rabbi  of  Prague,  may  be  cited ;  he  presents  the 
argument  from  history,  saying,  that  from  the  time  of 
Abraham  none  have  questioned  the  fact  that  circumcision 
is  a  necessary  condition  for  entrance  into  Judaism ;  he  in- 
dulges in  the  strongest  terms  of  condemnation  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Reform  Society,  speaking  of  them  as  "that 
frivolous  company,  which  denies  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  our  religion,  and  confesses  publicly  that  it  does  not 
accept  our  traditions ; "  1  "  those  reformers  have  no  definite 
standpoint  in  Judaism;  their  only  purpose  is  to  break 
down  all  the  preventive  measures  which  the  divine  law  has 
set  up  against  human  passions ; " 2  "we  must  exercise  the 
greatest  care  and  warn  our  co-religionists  most  earnestly 
to  have  no  association  of  any  kind  with  the  members  of 
this  Reform  Society,  particularly  not  to  form  any  matri- 
monial alliances  with  them. " 3  I  refrain  from  quoting 
any  further  from  these  opinions,  since  the  extracts  which 
have  been  given  indicate  the  sentiment  that  runs  through- 
out the  volume;  as  already  mentioned,  each  and  every  one 
represented  in  this  collection  argued  strongly  and  often 
passionately  in  favor  of  circumcision  as  an  absolute  re- 
quirement for  the  Jew;  it  is  but  just,  however,  that  the 
other  side  also  be  given  a  hearing,  and  I  therefore  feel  it 
necessary  to  introduce  the  opinions  of  the  two  leading  re- 
formers of  the  time,  Geiger  and  Holdheim.  Although 
Geiger  was  quite  as  opposed  to  the  course  pursued  by  the 
Reform  Society,  as  were  the  strict  traditionalists, 4  still 
he  sympathized  with  them  in  their  opposition  to  circum- 
cision ;  in  a  letter  to  Zunz,  written  March  19,  1845,  he  says 

1  Babbinische  Gutachten  uber  die  Beschneidung,  26.        2  Ibid.,  137. 

'Ibid.,  140.  See  also  his  article,  "Die  Epoche  des  Maccabaer- 
Kampfes  und  die  heutige  Zeit — Eine  Parallele,"  in  Zeitschrift  fur 
die  religiosen  Inter  essen  des  Judenthums,  I  (1844),  117. 

4  See  his  letters  of  Aug.  25,  1843,  and  June  11,  1844,  to  M.  A. 
Stern,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  167  ff.,  173  ff. 


FEANKFOKT  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     189 

in  discussing  Zunz  's  x  opinion  on  circumcision :  1 ' 1  was  not 
in  sympathy  with  the  Reform  Society ;  it  had  no  clear  idea 
of  what  it  was  striving  for,  neither  was  it  honest  enough 
in  its  utterances ;  instead  of  proceeding  calmly  and  sanely, 
it  aroused  the  greatest  antagonism  by  attacking  at  once  the 
rite  of  circumcision,  which  was  considered  a  very  funda- 
mental of  Judaism.  ...  As  for  myself,  I  must  confess 
that  I  cannot  comprehend  the  necessity  of  working  up 
a  spirit  of  enthusiasm  for  the  ceremony  merely  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  held  in  general  esteem.  It  remains  a 
barbarous  bloody  act  .  .  .  ;  the  sacrificial  idea  which  in- 
vested the  act  with  sanctity  in  former  days  has  no  signifi- 
cance for  us.  However  tenaciously  religious  sentiment 
may  have  clung  to  it  formerly,  at  present  its  only  supports 
are  habit  and  fear,  to  which  we  certainly  do  not  wish  to 
erect  any  shrines. ' ' 2  Geiger,  however,  did  not  express 
himself  publicly  in  this  wise ;  this  was  written  in  a  private 
communication.  Holdheim,  on  the  other  hand,  issued  a 
pamphlet  entitled  Circumcision,  Viewed  Religiously  and 
Dogmatically; 3  he  considers  the  subject  at  length  from 
three  points:  (1)  is  circumcision  so  important  a  condition 
in  Judaism  that  the  uncircumcised  individual  who  has  been 
born  of  Jewish  parents  is  not  to  be  considered  a  Jew?  (2) 
is  the  father  who  neglects  to  have  his  son  circumcised  still 
to  be  considered  a  Jew?  (3)  what  is  to  be  the  attitude  of 
the  Jewish  religious  authoritative  body  if  circumcision  is 
neglected?  may  it  resort  to  force— in  such  cases  as  it  has 
the  power  to  do  so— to  compel  a  father  to  have  the  cere- 
mony performed,  or  in  case  it  has  not  the  power,  may  it 

1  Zunz  had  written  in  his  response :     ' '  God  forbid  that  we  should 
tamper  with  this  precept,  which  was  in  past  times,  and  is  still  at  the 
present  day,  reverenced  as  sacred  by  the  whole  Jewish  people.     Who 
will  dare  abrogate  with  impunity  this  holy  rite?" 

2  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  182-3. 

8  TJeber  die  Beschneidung  in  religios-dogmatischer  Beziehung, 
Schwerin  and  Berlin,  1844;  cf.  also  his  statement  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  48. 
Berlin,  1857. 


190  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

call  in  the  aid  of  the  civil  authorities?1  The  third  ques- 
tion he  answered  with  a  decisive  negative;  the  individual's 
freedom  of  conscience  may  not  be  tampered  with  by  the 
application  of  force ;  the  religious  leaders  in  Judaism  may 
exercise  only  the  task  and  the  right  to  teach.  In  regard 
to  the  first  two  points,  he  contended  that  circumcision  was 
a  sign  and  condition  of  the  theocratic-national,  but  not  of 
the  religio-universalistic  covenant  in  Judaism;  not  circum- 
cision then  makes  the  Jew,  but  birth;  circumcision  is  not 
an  all-essential  requirement  in  Judaism,  therefore  both  the 
father  who  neglected  to  circumcise  his  son,  and  the  son  who 
was  not  circumcised,  are  to  be  considered  Jews.  2 

1  The  consideration  of  this  third  point  was  undoubtedly  inspired  by 
the   utterances    of    Zacharias   Frankel,    the   exponent   of    "positive- 
historical  Judaism,"  in  his  magazine  Zeitschrift  fur  die  religiosen 
Interessen  des  Judenthums,  I,   60   ff.     Frankel  argued  that  if  the 
father  neglected  to  have  his  child  circumcised  the  duty  devolved  upon 
the   religious    authoritative   body.     It   is    only    through    circumcision 
that  the  born  Israelite  receives  the  real  sanctification.     True,  by  the 
very  fact  of  his  birth  he  is  included  in  the  congregation,  but  he  does 
not  become  a  full  member  thereof  till  he  is  circumcised.     Therefore 
the  act  is  to  be  considered  partly  in  the  light  of  a  sacrament.     In 
Judaism  even  more  than  in  Christianity  the  sacramental  reception  of 
the   child   devolves   upon   the   spiritual   representatives   of   the   com- 
munity as  a  duty.     For  in  Christianity  the  child  is  entirely  without 
the  fold  until  baptized,  while  in  Judaism  it  is  partly  within  owing  to 
its  birth.     The   religious   authoritative  body   is   not   to   punish    the 
father,  but  to  protect  the  child,  and  should  call  in  the  aid  of  the 
civil  power,  which  is  justified  in  interfering  in  such  cases  as  threaten 
to  disrupt  Judaism. 

2  It  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  refer  in  this  connection  to  a  most 
interesting  case  that  occurred  a  few  years  later.     In  1847,  a  Mr. 
Hirsch,   of    Teterow,    Mecklenburg-Schwerin,   neglected   to    have   his 
newly-born  son  circumcised;  he  expressed  the  desire,  however,  to  rear 
the  child  in  the  Jewish  faith,  and  insisted  that  it  be  entered  in  the 
registry  of  Jewish  births  and  receive  its  name  in  the  synagogue  in 
accordance    with    the    custom    then    existing    in    Mecklenburg.     The 
teacher,  Salinger,  who  officiated  in  the  community,  did  not  know  how 
to  proceed  in  this  exceptional  case;  he  applied  to  the  Jewish  direc- 
torate for  guidance;  this  in  its  turn  referred  the  case  to  Dr.  David 


FBANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FBIENDS  OF  EEFOEM 

The  result  of  all  this  agitation  was  to  leave  the  question, 
as  to  the  necessity  of  circumcision  as  a  conditio  sine  qua 
won1  of  Judaism,  much  the  same  as  it  had  been  before. 

Einhorn,  the  chief  rabbi  of  the  province,  for  decision.  Einhorn 
authorized  the  teacher  to  name  the  child  in  the  synagogue,  and 
showed  that  even  from  the  Talmudical  standpoint  the  uncircumcised 
Jew  is  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  Jewish  community  if  he  has  not 
willfully  declared  his  purpose  to  cut  himself  loose ;  this  is  not  the  case 
in  the  present  instance,  for  the  father  has  declared  expressly  his 
desire  to  rear  the  child  as  a  Jew,  and  certainly  the  innocent  child  is 
not  to  be  excluded  from  the  community  for  no  fault  of  its  own. 
He  closes  his  letter  of  instructions  in  the  following  lofty  strain: 
"May  God  bless  the  child,  and  adorn  it  with  the  virtues  of  an 
Israelite  indeed,  an  Israelite  of  circumcised  heart,  and  may  all  those 
who  think  that  the  integrity  of  our  divine  religion,  which  our  fore- 
fathers sealed  with  their  noble  blood  a  thousand  times  as  a  covenant 
between  God  and  Israel  and  all  mankind,  is  threatened  by  such  occur- 
rences, and  are  therefore  sorely  troubled,  derive  consolation  from  the 
thought  that  the  divine  by  its  very  nature  is  imperishable,  and  that 
Judaism  rests  on  the  indestructible  pillars  of  right,  truth,  and  peace, 
which  will  not  totter  even  though  the  earth  wax  old  like  a  garment 
and  the  heavens  vanish  like  smoke."  The  child  was  named  in  the 
synagogue  on  Sabbath  Channukah.  See  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1849,  583; 
Einhorn,  Sinai,  II,  736-7,  Baltimore,  1857. 

1  In  his  Lehrbuch  der  mosaischen  Religion,  published  in  1826, 
Alexander  Behr  made  the  startling  statement  that  circumcision  was 
not  a  condition  necessary  for  reception  into  the  covenant  of  Israel, 
and  asserted  that  its  omission  was  somewhat  like  the  neglect  to  eat 
unleavened  bread  during  Passover.  He  denied  all  sacramental  sig- 
nificance to  circumcision.  The  amazing  fact  in  connection  with  these 
statements  is  that  the  book  was  approved  by  Eabbi  Abraham  Bing 
of  Wiirzburg  and  the  rabbinate  of  Fiirth,  both  ultra-orthodox.  The 
words  in  the  original  are  these :  ' f  Keineswegs  ist  die  Beschneidung 
eine  Bedingung  zur  Aufnahme  in  den  Bund  der  Israeliten,  deren 
Unterlassung  wird  vielmehr  ungefahr  dem  Essen  gesauerten  Erodes 
wahrend  der  Osterzeit  gleichgestellt,  welche  letzte  Siinde  sich  von 
don  deutschen  Juden  vielleicht  die  Halfte  zu  Schulden  kommen 
lasst,  ohne  dass  unseres  Wissens  ein  Eabbine  es  sich  hatte  beikommen 
lassen,  sich  darum  zu  kiimmem.  Hierin  findet  die  unter  christlichen 
Glaubensgenossen  ziemlich  verbreitete  imd  von  dem  rabbinischen 
Juden  wider  besseres  Wissen  ausgebreitete  irrige  Ansicht,  als  habe 


192  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

With  the  fewest  exceptions,  the  authoritative  voices  had 
expressed  themselves  strongly  in  the  affirmative.  Hold- 
heim  and  Hess  stood  alone  among  the  theologians  in  their 
radical  views  on  the  subject;  Geiger  apparently  agreed 
with  them,  but  he  did  not  give  utterance  to  his  views  other- 
wise than  in  private  correspondence.1  Practically  the  cere- 
mony continued  to  be,  and  still  is,  almost  universally  ob- 
served; the  rabbinical  conference  that  met  in  Breslau  in 
1846  made  a  number  of  declarations  of  a  practical  bearing, 
but  uttered  no  decisive  opinion  on  the  cardinal  point  of  the 
essentiality  or  non-essentiality  of  the  ceremony;  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  held 
in  the  city  of  New  York  in  1892,  the  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers present  voted  that  circumcision  was  not  necessary  in 
the  case  of  proselytes  to  Judaism. 

All  things  considered,  the  outcome  of  this  whole  agitation 
was  a  gain  for  the  progressive  movement.  Although  the 
extremists  who  had  called  the  Reform  Society  into  being  did 

die  Beschneidung  bei  den  Juden,  wie  die  Taufe  bei  den  Christen, 
eine  sacramentale  Bedeutung,  ihre  Berechtigung  und  Wiirdigung. 
Dieser  nicht  einmal  mosaische,  sondern  abrahamitische,  urspriing- 
lich  agyptische  Gebrauch  ist  kein  religioser,  sondern  vielmehr  ein  bios 
nationaler,  der  wie  die  Opfer,  die  Vielweiberei  und  anders  nach  der 
Vertreibung  der  Juden  aus  Palastina  und  deren  Ausbreitung  im 
Occident  hatte  aufhb'ren  sollen,  fiir  diejenigen  Juden  aber,  welche 
nicht  das  gelobte  Land,  sondern  das  Land,  in  welchem  sie  geboren 
und  erzogen,  als  ihr  Vaterland  betrachten,  alle  Haltbarkeit  verloren 
und  sich  nnr  no  eh  wie  ein  Krankheitsotoff  von  Geschlecht  zu  Ge- 
schlecht  fortgeerbt  hat." 

1In  a  letter  to  Wechsler  in  1849  Geiger  declares  that  some  new 
form  of  initiation  into  Judaism  must  soon  be  found  which  should 
take  the  place  of  circumcision;  his  words  are  as  follows:  "Es  muss 
nun  bald  eine  Form  gefunden  werden,  welche  diese  alte  ersetzt;  die 
Aussegnung  der  Wochnerin  diirfte  nicht  ganz  genugen,  die  Anwesen- 
heit  des  Kindes  scheint  gleichfall  erforderlich,  und  der  Anfang  dazu 
kounte  mit  den  Madchen  gemacht  werden;  dann  wiirde  allmahlich, 
wie  die  Confirmation  die  Bar-Mizwah-Allfanzerei,  so  auch  die  neue 
Form  die  Beschneidung  verdrangen. ' '  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V, 
202-3. 


FEANKFOET  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     193 

not  meet  with  much  sympathy,  yet  on  the  other  hand  it 
had  become  apparent  that  the  days  of  usefulness  of  extrem- 
ists at  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  like  Trier,  were  over,  and 
that  the  community  of  Frankfort  required  a  rabbi  of  the 
new  school.  Events  had  been  moving  towards  this  end  for 
some  years,  but  it  was  not  till  1844  that  it  was  consum- 
mated. In  March  of  that  year,  Leopold  Stein,  rabbi  of 
Burgkunstadt  in  Bavaria,  was  elected  as  associate  rabbi  to 
Trier.  This  choice  of  the  directorate  was  extremely  dis- 
pleasing to  the  old  rabbi,  and,  had  the  circumstances  and 
the  year  been  the  same,  there  would  have  been  undoubtedly 
a  repetition  of  the  Geiger-Tiktin  affair  ;  but  even  during  the 
short  space  of  six  years  great  changes  had  taken  place  in 
the  religious  atmosphere  enveloping  Jewry,  and  the  stren- 
uous experience  of  Geiger  was  not  repeated.  Still  Trier 
did  not  accept  the  inevitable  without  a  struggle;  a  few 
weeks  after  the  election  of  Stein  he  refused  to  deliver  his 
semi-annual  derashah  on  the  Great  Sabbath;  he  had  pro- 
tested to  the  Senate  of  the  city  against  the  election  of 
Stein  ;  the  Senate  referred  him  to  the  directorate  of  the  con- 
gregation as  having  jurisdiction  in  the  premises.  Trier 
resigned  as  rabbi  in  May. 

Stein,  who  styled  himself  an  adherent  of  the  progressive 
rabbinical  party,  at  once  began  reforming  the  service;  as 
early  as  July,  1844,  he  introduced  sixteen  liturgical  re- 
forms; among  them  may  be  mentioned  the  change  of  the 
benediction  *1J  wy  fctftP1  to  5&OB"  'OEW;2  the  elimination 
of  the  benediction  nt^K  wy  «^;  3  the  substitution  of  an 
appropriate  German  prayer  for  the  IPTiB  DIP"1  4  and  the 


1  Praised  be  Thou,  O  Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe,  who  hast 
not  made  me  a  Gentile. 

2  Praised  be  Thou,  O  Lord  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe,  who  hast 
made  me  an  Israelite. 

8  Praised  be  Thou,  O  Lore*  our  God,  King  of  the  Universe,  who  hast 
not  made  me  a  woman. 
*  Supra,  J36. 

13 


194  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

"p3tP  •"»  ;  J  and  the  substitution  of  German  songs  for  the 
nn  nrtf 2  and  the  mnj  13?  ;3  the  introduction  of  the  Ger- 
man sermon ;  and  the  singing  of  German  hymns  before  and 
after  the  sermon. 

The  activity  of  Stein  in  the  reform  cause,  although  by 
no  means  satisfactory  to  the  members  of,  and  sympathizers 
with  the  Reform  Society,  for  whom  he  did  not  go  far 
enough,  still  had  the  effect  of  blunting  the  edge  of  their 
weapons.  The  communal  congregation  having  placed  at  its 
head  a  rabbi  of  the  new  school,  it  was  felt  generally  that 
there  was  no  need  for  a  special  reform  society  or  congrega- 
tion. In  truth  the  Reform  Society  as  an  organization  dis- 
appeared from  the  public  communal  life ;  it  was  heard  from 
but  twice  again;  once  when  it  declared  that  the  time  had 
come  for  Sunday  services  to  be  introduced  and  appointed 
a  committee  of  five  to  look  for  a  suitable  preacher,  and  to 
request  the  congregation  to  grant  the  use  of  the  Andachts- 
saal  for  this  purpose,  4  and  again  Avhen,  in  June,  1845,  it 
issued  a  circular  letter,  in  which  it  expresses  gratification 
at  the  progress  of  reform  ideas;  after  calling  attention  to 
what  was  done  at  the  Brunswick  rabbinical  conference, 5 
it  calls  upon  every  Israelite  to  support  the  rabbis  who  are 
leading  the  hosts  onward.  It  welcomes  the  formation  of 
the  Reform  Association  of  Berlin. G  It  suggests  a  meeting 
of  reformers  from  all  over  Germany  in  the  fall  of  1845, 
for  the  discussion  of  ways  and  means  of  uniting  the  various 
reform  tendencies  among  German  Jews.  The  letter  ends 
with  the  words  "let  us  remain  united,  firm  and  loyal,  and 
the  success  of  our  efforts  will  discomfit  the  false  zealots, 
will  put  to  shame  the  selfish  indifferentists,  and  Judaism 

1  Supra,  126.  2  Supra,  53. 

3  Psalm,  xcv.,  one  of  the  introductory  sections  of  the  Sabbath  eve 
service. 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  709. 

8  See  the  next  chapter. 

6  Die  Genossenschaft  fur  Reform  im  Judenthume,  organized  May  8, 
1845.  See  Chapter  VIII. 


FEANKFORT  SOCIETY  OF  FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM     195 

will  become  the  bond  that  unites  us  without  separating  us 
from  our  century,  our  fatherland  and  mankind. ' ' 1  These 
words  may  be  considered  the  valedictory  of  the  Frankfort 
Society;  considering  that  it  had  never  in  reality  passed 
beyond  the  formative  stage,  the  prominent  role  that  it 
played  during  two  eventful  years  is  remarkable;  that  it 
gave  a  great  impulse  to  the  progressive  movement,  not  only 
in  Frankfort,  but  throughout  Germany,  cannot  be  gain- 
said ;  nor  can  it  be  denied,  on  the  other  hand,  that  its  mem- 
bers, pursuing  the  method  they  did,  showed  that  they  did 
not  have  the  correct  understanding  of  the  development  of 
Judaism.  The  extreme  individualism  and  the  animus 
against  theologians  and  rabbis,  at  once  stamped  the  Society 
as  partisan  beyond  measure,  but  more  than  all  else  the 
absolute  inadequacy  of  its  platform  proved  that  its  found- 
ers were  not  competent  leaders  in  that  stormy  period  of 
Jewish  life.  It  represents,  however,  a  groping  for  the 
light,  and  although  it  failed  signally  in  the  work  it  set  out 
to  do,  still  will  it  remain  in  Jewish  annals  as  one  of  the 
most  interesting  episodes  of  a  most  stirring  epoch.  It  had 
panegyrists  and  detractors : 2  it  aroused  bitter  passions. 
These  things  have  passed.  Looking  back  from  the  vantage- 
ground  of  sixty  years  after,  we  recognize  that  the  Reform 
Society  of  Frankfort  represented  the  extreme  left  of  the 

1  /.  N.  J.,  VI,  209-10. 

'  In  addition  to  the  articles  and  pamphlets  referred  to  in  the  course 
of  this  chapter,  the  following  may  be  mentioned  as  having  been 
inspired  by  the  Reform  Society: — Das  moderns  Judenthum,  die  Frank- 
furter Beformfreunde  und  die  Neue  Zeit,  von  Albert  Frankel,  Eeut- 
lingen,  1844.  Die  Babbinerversammlung  und  der  Beformverein; 
letzte  Auflosung  der  Judenfrage,  von  Dr.  W.  B.  Frankel  (an  anti- 
Semitic  screed  by  an  apostate),  Elberfeld,  1844.  An  die  israelitischen 
Beformfreunde  in  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  an  anonymous  poem  by  a  Chris- 
tian lady,  I  N.  J.,  IV,  214.  Ueber  den  jiidischen  Beformverein  in 
Frankfurt,  von  Prof.  Dr.  Nesselmann,  ibid.,  V,  32.  Zur  Kritik  der 
Beschneidungsfrage  im  Beformverein  von  Dr.  J.  Bergson,  Litera- 
turblatt  des  Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  1847,  nos.  44,  45, 
46,  47. 


196  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

hosts  marching  under  the  reform  banner ;  in  some  respects 
it  had  separated  from  the  main  army,  but  with  it  all,  its 
members  desired  to  remain  within  Judaism,  and  we  may 
write  as  its  epitaph  the  closing  words  of  its  last  public  utter- 
ance, that  its  aim  was  to  make  "  Judaism  the  bond  which 
unites  us  without  separating  us  from  our  century,  our 
fatherland,  and  mankind." 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  EABBINICAL  CONFEBENCES,  1844-6 

As  early  as  1837  Abraham  Geiger  is  on  record  as  advo- 
cating a  conference  of  like-thinking,  progressive  rabbis  for 
the  discussion  of  the  essentials  of  Judaism  and  the  con- 
sideration of  the  practical  religious  problems  that  were 
demanding  solution.  Individuals  had  given  expression  to 
the  necessity  of  freeing  the  religion  of  the  accumulated 
mass  of  outgrown  forms  wherewith  it  was  burdened;  they 
had  likewise  called  attention  to  the  facts  that  in  the 
changed  conditions  of  their  life  thousands  of  Jews  were 
disregarding  the  commands  of  rabbinical  Judaism,  and  that 
the  cleft  between  what  passed  as  the  authoritative  official 
expression  of  the  faith  and  the  practice  of  the  people  was 
growing  wider  and  wider.  Geiger,  therefore,  felt  that  the 
need  for  a  gathering  of  religious  leaders  was  imperative  in 
order  that  some  conclusion  as  to  how  the  difficult  situation 
was  to  be  met  might  be  arrived  at ;  his  ideas  of  the  purpose 
of  such  a  conference  are  set  forth  in  an  open  letter  written 
on  May  10,  1837,  while  he  was  still  rabbi  in  Wiesbaden, 
and  entitled  "The  Rabbinical  Assembly;  Epistle  to  a 
Friend  in  the  Jewish  Ministry. "  1  In  this  communication 
he  says  that  the  conference  is  not  "to  formulate  a  new 
Judaism  nor  to  assume  synodal  authority;  it  is  to  afford 
honest  men  the  opportunity  of  discussing  the  best  methods 
of  conducting  their  office,  and  is  to  be  a  beginning  towards 
a  resuscitation  of  the  well-nigh  vanished  spirit  of  Juda- 

1 ' '  Die  Babbinerversammlung :  Sendschreiben  an  einen  bef reundeten 
judischen  Geistlichen, ' '  w-  Z.  J.  T.,  Ill,  313-32.  See  also  his  letter 
to  Elias  Griinebaum  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  97. 

197 


198  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ism. ' ' l  He  shows  how  this  form  is  being  disregarded 
here  and  that  precept  there,  how  one  co-religionist  believes 
that  the  service  of  God  demands  the  punctilious  observance 
of  every  iota  of  the  traditional  ritual,  while  another  enter- 
tains altogether  different  views,  and  believes  that  the  sal- 
vation of  the  faith  depends  upon  its  being  delivered  from 
the  rigidity  of  formalism  ("Formenstarrheit")  :  all  this 
was  giving  rise  to  unutterable  confusion,  and  the  people 
were  drifting  along  helplessly,  and  each  one  was  like  to  be- 
come a  law  to  himself :  "If,  however,  a  number  of  rabbis 
make  unanimous  declaration  as  to  the  non-essentiality  of 
this  or  that  observance  the  bonds  of  formalism  will  be 
loosened. ' ' 2  Hence,  even  though  such  a  conference  were 
only  deliberative  and  not  authoritative,  it  would  neverthe- 
less give  a  mighty  impetus  to  the  progressive  movement; 
the  people  would  go  forward  with  greater  confidence  if 
they  knew  that  their  leaders  had  agreed  upon  a  standpoint 
that  expressed  a  conception  of  Judaism  based  upon  the 
spirit  and  not  merely  upon  the  observance  of  unnumbered 
forms,  many  of  which  were  no  longer  religiously  significant. 
"I  confess,"  he  concludes,  "that  I  cannot  conceive  how 
we  can  hold  up  our  heads  if  we  will  not  stand  courageously 
for  our  innermost  convictions;  I  cannot  rest  satisfied  to 
continue  to  wear  a  mask  any  longer,  politic  as  such  a  course 
would  be  undoubtedly.  I  leave  it  to  your  own  conscience 
to  decide  how  friends  of  truth  and  integrity  will  judge  us, 
and  by  what  name  posterity  will  stigmatize  us  if  we  con- 
tinue to  speak  high-sounding  phrases  but  to  enact  weak 
deeds. ' ' 3  Here  Geiger  v/as  a  pioneer ;  this  was  the  first 
call  for  a  rabbinical  conference  to  consider  the  present  con- 
dition of  Judaism ;  4  the  gathering  took  place  at  Wiesbaden 

1  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  in,  321. 

*Ibid.,  327.  *Ilia.,  331. 

*  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  art.  ' '  Eabbinical  Conferences. ' '  The  Bava- 
rian District  Assemblies  held  in  1835  were  not  rabbinical  conferences 
in  the  strict  sense,  as  laymen  also  participated  in  them.  Supra,  55. 


THE    RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          199 

in  August,  1837,  and  was  attended  by  Geiger,  J.  Aub  of 
Baireuth,  M.  Bloch  of  Buchau,  J.  A.  Friedlander  of  Brilon, 
E.  Griinebaum  of  Landau,  M.  Gutmann  of  Redwitz,  S. 
Herxheimer  of  Bernburg,  A.  Kohn  of  Hohenems,  I.  Lowi 
of  Furth,  J.  Maier  of  Stuttgart,  L.  Stein  of  Burgkunstadt, 
H.  Wagner  of  Mannheim,  M.  Wassermann  of  Miihringen, 
and  B.  Wechsler;  M.  Hess  of  Eisenach  arrived  too  late. 
True,  the  conference  accomplished  little,  much  less  than 
Geiger  expected.  The  only  practical  results  of  the  meet- 
ing consisted,  first,  in  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  that 
studies  on  subjects  of  practical  import  should  be  published 
in  Geiger 's  theological  magazine,  and  that  thereupon  all 
the  rabbis  who  were  in  attendance  should  give  expression 
to  their  opinions  on  these  subjects  through  the  same 
medium;  and,  secondly,  in  the  appointment  of  a  commis- 
sion, consisting  of  Lowi,  Maier,  and  Stein,  to  prepare  a  man- 
ual for  domestic  devotion. x  Still,  even  though  the  results 
were  so  meagre,  it  was  an  achievement  to  have  brought  to- 
gether a  number  of  Jewish  leaders. 2  Geiger  recognized 
clearly  that  one  of  the  greatest  needs  of  this  disturbed  time 
in  Jewry  was  that  the  guides  of  the  congregations  should 
arrive  at  some  agreement  on  the  subjects  of  practical  mo- 
ment that  were  agitating  individuals  and  communities. 
Although  the  Wiesbaden  conference  exerted  scarcely  any 
influence,  still  was  the  idea  of  its  originator  to  be  vindi- 
cated brilliantly  some  time  later  in  the  assembling  of  the 
famous  rabbinical  conferences  of  Brunswick,  Frankfort, 
and  Breslau  in  the  years  1844,  1845,  and  1846,  which  form 
the  subject  of  the  present  chapter. 

1For  an  account  of  this  conference  see  a  letter  written  by  Geiger 
to  Jacob  Auerbach,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  99;  also  his  letters 
to  J.  Derenbourg  of  the  dates  April  10,  and  Aug.  23,  1837,  published 
in  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LX  (1896),  188,  213. 

2  A  letter  written  from  Frankfort  sets  forth  the  hopes  which  this 
gathering  had  aroused  in  the  hearts  of  the  friends  of  progressive 
Judaism:  see  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  Ill,  476;  see  also  Jost,  "Geschichte  des 
Judenthuras  und  seiner  Sekten,"  III,  352. 


200  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Each  day  well-nigh  in  that  stormy  time  brought  evidence 
from  here,  there,  and  everywhere  in  Germany  of  the  diffi- 
culties encountered  by  Jews  of  living  the  new  life  in  the 
world  into  which  emancipation  had  thrown  them,  and  car- 
rying out  faithfully  the  commands  of  rabbinical  Judaism. l 
Many  had  cut  the  Gordian  knot  by  simply  disregarding 
the  legislation  of  the  codes,  but  there  were  thousands  who 
were  troubled  honestly  and  sincerely,  and  who  were  look- 
ing anxiously  for  a  way  out  of  this  cul  de  sac:  the  conflict 
between  religion  and  life  had  to  cease;  the  problem  cried 
for  solution:  who  so  qualified  to  solve  it,  if  indeed  solved 
it  could  be,  as  the  religious  and  theological  experts?  The 
seven  years  succeeding  Geiger's  initial  effort  disclosed  the 
necessity  for  the  gathering  of  these  experts  more  and  more 
clearly;  the  ranks  of  those  who  could  not  fulfill  conscien- 
tiously every  jot  and  tittle  of  the  rabbinical  codes  were 
swelling  day  by  day, 2  many  had  ceased  to  be  affiliated  with 
the  synagogue,  and  were  Jews  in  name  only;  the  demand 
was  imperious  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  life  of  the  Jew 
with  his  religious  professions.  Hence  when,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  1844,  Ludwig  Philippson,  the  editor  of  the 
most  widely  circulated  Jewish  publication  of  the  time, 
issued  a  call  for  a  rabbinical  conference,  his  words  met 
with  an  instant  and  sympathetic  response ;  the  time  seemed 
to  be  ripe  now.  In  this  call  Philippson  wrote  as  follows: 
"Let  us  speak  plainly.  The  issue  is  no  longer  the  permis- 
sibility or  non-permissibility  of  this  or  that  synagogal  in- 
stitution, of  this  or  that  alleviation  for  civil  and  social  life ; 
the  issue  before  us  is  concerned  with  the  entire  content  of 
our  religion,  which  we  must  present  and  strengthen  in  its 

1  Holdheim,  Die  erste  Rab'binerversammlung  und  Eerr  Dr.  Frarikel, 
16,  Schwerin,  1845.     M.  Simion,  quoted  in  Holdheim,  Geschichte  der 
Entstehung    und    EntwicTcelung    der   judischen    Beformgemeinde    in 
Berlin,  38.     Berlin,  1857. 

2  See  the  addresses  of  various  communities  to  the  Frankfort  Con- 
ference, Protokolle,  243,  249-53,  260-6,  269. 


^*r 

THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          201 

purity  and  divinity  in  order  to  rescue  it  from  deadening 
rigidity  on  the  one  hand  and  from  benumbing  unbelief  on 
the  other.  Judaism  is  weakening  in  its  hold  upon  its  fol- 
lowers day  by  day,  and  every  layman  is  asking  us,  What 
are  you  doing?  The  objects  of  the  conference  shall  be— 
(1)  to  bring  the  rabbis  into  closer  relation  and  acquaint- 
anceship; (2)  to  promote  unanimity  in  the  conduct  of  the 
rabbinical  office;  (3)  to  further  the  founding  of  communal 
institutions;  and  (4)  to  take  counsel  together  on  all  Jewish 
affairs."1 

The  readiness  wherewith  a  large  number  of  rabbis  de- 
clared themselves  to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  object  of  this 
call  showed  their  eagerness  to  contribute  towards  solving 
what  was  becoming  an  intolerable  condition  of  affairs  for 
those  who  felt  that  many  Jewish  institutions  did  not  com- 
port with  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  generation,  and 
that  these  institutions  demanded  a  thoroughgoing  and 
comprehensive  reform.  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that 
the  conferences  were  intended  to  be  erected  upon  the  broad 
foundation  of  fitting  the  essentials  of  Judaism  to  the  prac- 
tical requirements  of  the  new  life  whereupon  the  Jews  had 
entered,  and  which  was  as  different  from  the  existence  of 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  27.  In  a  leading  article  that  appeared 
several  weeks  later  entitled  "  Annual  Rabbinical  Conferences" 
(ibid.,  117),  Philippson  states  that  the  idea  to  issue  a  call  for  a 
conference  was  suggested  to  him  in  a  letter  that  he  had  received  from 
Dr.  Max  Lilienthal  from  Riga,  Russia,  on  Nov.  26,  1843,  wherein  the 
writer  requested  him  to  call  such  a  meeting;  he  had  received  also  a 
communication  from  Rabbi  Benedict  Levi  of  Giessen,  written  on 
Jan.  2,  1844,  containing  an  article  advocating  the  organization  of  a 
rabbinical  conference,  and  urging  that  he  (Philippson)  should  take 
the  initiative  in  the  matter.  Ibid.,  118.  See  Levies  own  statement 
Ein  StiickcJien  Autobiographic,  ibid.,  LXIII  (1899),  175.  An  excel- 
lent survey  of  the  conferences  was  given  by  Philippson  in  a  series  of 
sketches  written  on  the  fortieth  anniversary  of  the  Brunswick  Con- 
ference; see  Geschichte  der  deutsclien  Rabbinerversammlungen  und 
Synoden,  ibid.,  XLYIII  (1884),  229-31,  245-7,  261-4,  277-80,  293- 
95. 


202  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  Ghetto  centuries  as  the  cramped  life  of  these  centuries 
had  been  from  the  freedom  of  the  Palestinian  common- 
wealth of  old.  Short  as  the  conferences  came  of  fulfilling 
this  great  expectation,  yet  this  was  undoubtedly  the  hope 
of  the  great  majority  of  the  men  who  were  instrumental  in 
calling  them  into  being. 

(a)  The  Brunswick  Conference 

It  was  determined  to  hold  the  first  conference  at  Bruns- 
wick. The  meeting  took  place  there,  June  12-19,  1844. 
The  conference  was  attended  by  the  following  rabbis:  A. 
Adler  of  Worms,  S.  Adler  of  Alzey,  Adler  of  Minden,  Ben 
Israel  of  Coblentz,  L.  Bodenheimer  of  Hildesheim,  S.  Form- 
stecher  of  Offenbach,  N.  Frankfurter  of  Hamburg,  A. 
Geiger  of  Breslau,  Goldman  of  Eschwege,  P.  Heidenheim 
of  Sonderhausen,  L.  Herzfeld  of  Brunswick,  S.  Herxheimer 
of  Bernburg,  M.  Hess  of  Stadt  Lengsfeld,  S.  Hirsch  of 
Luxembourg,  Hoffmann  of  Meiningen,  S.  Holdheim  of 
Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  J.  Jolowicz  of  Marienwerder,  J. 
Kahn  of  Treves,  J.  Klein  of  Stolp,  J.  Maier  of  Stuttgart, 
L.  Philippson  of  Magdeburg,  G.  Salomon  of  Hamburg, 
L.  Schott  of  Randegg,  L.  Sobernheim  of  Bingen,  and  B. 
Wechsler  of  Oldenburg. 

Geiger,  who  was  prevented  from  being  present  at  the 
opening  session  of  the  conference,  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
members,  in  which  he  urged  that  this  first  conference  be 
merely  preparatory  and  not  resolutatory— that  it  concern 
itself  with  practical  issues,  and  not  with  theoretical  dis- 
cussions, and  that  it  avoid  laying  down  any  hard-and-fast 
rules. 1 

J.  Maier,  of  Stuttgart,  was  elected  president  of  the  con- 
ference. In  his  address  of  acceptance  he  recommended,  as 
had  Geiger  in  his  letter,  that  the  conference  bear  in  mind 
constantly  the  practical  requirements  of  the  day,  and  con- 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  337-9.  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  197- 
202. 


THE   RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846  203 

fine  its  attention  to  solving  as  far  as  it  could  the  vexing 
problems  that  were  agitating  Jewish  life.  The  rabbinical 
conference  was  expected  to  become  a  permanent  institution  ; 
hence  it  was  necessary  to  declare  at  the  very  outset  what 
its  purpose  was  to  be;  the  first  paragraph  of  the  rules 
governing  the  conference  defines  this  as  follows:  "The 
rabbinical  conferences  have  as  their  purpose  that  the  mem- 
bers shall  take  counsel  together  in  order  to  determine  by 
what  means  the  preservation  and  development  of  Judaism 
and  the  enlivening  of  the  religious  consciousness  can  be 
accomplished. ' '  *  The  discussion  of  this  paragraph  touched 
the  all-important  question  of  the  authoritative  character 
of  the  conference.  Was  the  conference  simply  to  discuss 
and  deliberate  upon  questions  of  importance,  or  was  it 
also  to  pass  resolutions  and  render  decisive  opinions?  If 
the  latter,  in  how  far  could  these  be  considered  binding  on 
the  congregations?  Would  the  congregations  accept  the 
decisions  of  the  rabbis?  In  a  word,  was  the  conference  to 
become  a  new  body  of  authority  for  Judaism,  or  were  its 
deliberations  to  be  purely  academic  and  without  practical 
import?  Some  very  interesting  opinions  were  enunciated 
during  the  lengthy  discussion:  the  general  feeling  seemed 
to  be  that  the  conference  had  not  a  synodal  character,  that 
its  resolutions  could  not  be  enforced,  and  that  at  best  any 
rabbi  present  who  voted  with  the  majority  on  any  question 
was  bound  morally  to  carry  out  such  resolution  in  the  prac- 
tical administration  of  his  office ; 2  on  the  other  hand,  it 
was  held  that  the  very  fact  that  certain  resolutions  had 
been  adopted  by  the  conference  would  give  strong  support 
to  any  rabbi  who  might  need  such  support,  and  that  after 
all  the  chief  thing  was  the  confidence  of  the  people ;  if  the 
people  had  confidence  in  them  their  work  would  prove  to 
be  of  a  lasting  character,  and  would  receive  an  authoritative 

1ProtoJcolle  der  ersten  Babbinerversammlung  abgehalten  in  Braun- 
schweig, XIII.     Braunschweig,  1844. 
2  Ibid.,  XVI,  18. 


204  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

stamp;  if  not,  all  their  efforts  were  in  vain.  This  was 
expressed  excellently  by  Holdheim,  who  said:  ''The  pur- 
pose of  our  gathering  is  to  work  for  the  preservation  and 
development  of  our  holy  religion ;  all  our  deliberations  are 
concerned  herewith,  and  we  pass  resolutions  as  to  how  this 
is  to  be  accomplished.  Have  we  any  synodal  justification  ? 
No ;  we  as  little  as  the  rabbis  of  former  times.  What  gave 
them  their  power  was  the  confidence  of  the  congregations, 
and  this  confidence  was  reposed  in  them  because  they  were 
scholars  and  adepts  in  the  law.  The  same  holds  with  us. " x 
In  a  later  discussion  he  expressed  himself  again  on  this 
question  of  authority:  "All  the  talk  about  a  Talmudical 
Judaism  is  an  illusion.  Science  has  decided  that  the  Tal- 
mud has  no  authority  dogmatically  or  practically.  Even 
those  who  will  not  acknowledge  this  go  beyond  the  Talmud. 
The  question  is,  Who  gives  us  the  right  to  change  the 
liturgy?  This  question  requires  an  unequivocal  answer. 
The  rtfnan  nwa  ^JK(The  Men  of  the  Great  Assembly) 
have  authority  only  for  their  age ;  what  they  ordained  was 
timely,  and  on  this  the  sanction  of  their  ordinances  rested. 
We  have  the  same  authority  for  our  age  if  we  give  utter- 
ance to  the  consciousness  of  our  age, ' ' 2  but  ' '  even  though 
the  Talmud  is  not  authoritative  for  us  we  do  not  wish  to 
disregard  the  intellectual  activity  of  two  thousand  years. 
We  say  merely  this :  Anything  which  upon  unbiased,  care- 
ful criticism  contradicts  the  religious  consciousness  of  the 
present  age  has  no  authority  for  us. ' ' 3  As  to  the  real  sig- 
nificance of  the  decision  of  the  majority  for  the  individual 
rabbi,  Samuel  Hirsch  said  well : ' '  Our  conference  must  have 
a  moral  consciousness  and  must  state  that  it  has  this,  so 

1  See  also  his  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  113. 

2  Protokolle,  55;   cf.  also  his  statement,  "Der  Talmud  spricht  aus 
seinem  Zeitbewusstsein  und  fiir  dasselbe  hatte  er  Eecht;  ich  spreche 
aus  einem  hoheren  Bewusstsein  meiner  Zeit  und  fiir  dasselbe  habe  ich 
Eeeht." — Ceremonialgesetz  im  Gottesreich,  50.     Schwerin,  1845. 

» Protolcolle,  66. 


THE   RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         205 

that  a  rabbi  who  has  voted  with  the  majority  can  refer  to 
the  resolutions  of  this  assembly.  He  must  be  empowered 
to  say:  'Although  this  or  that  may  be  in  opposition  to  a 
paragraph  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk,  I  teach  or  do  it,  and 
thus  many  rabbis  have  voted  with  me,  to  whom  I  can 
refer. '  "  *  The  whole  discussion,  as  in  fact  did  all  the  dis- 
cussions, showed  in  what  an  unsettled  state  Jewish  opinion 
and  practice  were ;  with  scarcely  an  exception  the  men  who 
had  assembled  at  Brunswick  desired  reform;  the  question 
was  merely  how  much?  Broadly  speaking,  the  rabbis 
present  might  have  been  classed  in  three  divisions— first, 
representatives  of  what  might  be  called  the  orthodox-reform 
party,  if  so  paradoxical  a  term  is  permissible,  i.  e.,  such  as 
demanded  that  if  any  changes  were  made  this  must  be  done 
consistently  with  the  Talmudic-rabbinical  standpoint;  they 
were  not  opposed  to  slight  changes,  but  these  must  not 
affect  the  existing  structure  of  Judaism  as  based  on  Talmud 
and  Shulchan  Aruk.  This  party  was  represented  but 
slightly,  by  three  advocates  at  the  most.  Secondly,  there 
was  the  reform  element,  which  was  in  a  great  majority ;  for 
them  Talmud  and  Shulchan  Aruk  were  authoritative  no 
longer ;  they  claimed  that  Judaism,  as  legalistic  rabbinism, 
had  lost  its  power  over  the  present  generation,  and  that 
the  spirit  of  the  religion  must  be  emphasized  as  over  against 
the  formalism  into  which  it  had  degenerated ;  they  held  that 
Judaism  in  its  fundamental  concept  as  the  ethical  mono- 
theism was  what  it  had  always  been  at  bottom ;  this  funda- 
mental concept  had  been  obscured  by  accretions  of  forms ; 
these  had  to  be  cleared  away  to  such  an  extent  as  they  no 
longer  fed  the  religious  nature,  and  their  place  had  to  be 
taken  by  such  religious  forms,  ceremonies,  and  institutions 
as  were  in  accord  with  the  religious  outlook  of  the  modern 
Jew;  such  traditional  ceremonies  and  institutions  as  still 
possessed  vitality  were,  as  a  matter  of  course,  to  be  retained, 
and  if  necessary  to  be  interpreted  accordingly.  Thirdly, 
there  was  what  might  be  termed  the  party  of  compromise, 
1  Protolcolle,  16. 


206      THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

who  desired  to  march  under  both  banners ;  they  wished  to 
make  haste  very  slowly,  to  preserve  the  traditions,  and 
yet  satisfy  the  needs  of  the  new  time  which  they  could  not 
help  but  recognize ;  such  were  opposed  to  any  declaration  of 
principles  or  to  any  positive  expression  that  might  indi- 
cate a  break  in  any  way  with  the  consensus  of  Jewish  tra- 
dition. 

The  character  of  the  conference  as  a  reform  gathering, 
however,  appeared  constantly  during  the  discussions. 
Thus,  when  Schott,  a  representative  of  the  rabbinical  party, 
denounced  the  tendency  to  abrogate  existing  customs,  and 
asked,  * '  Shall  we  negate  always  ? ' '  Holdheim  answered  him 
by  saying  that  what  Schott  called  negation  was  really 
affirmation  in  the  light  of  the  declared  purpose  of  the  con- 
ference, viz.,  "the  preservation  of  Judaism."  "The  pres- 
ervation of  the  essential,"  he  claimed,  "is  conditioned  by 
the  excision  of  the  non-essential.  The  healthy  portion  can 
be  saved  only  by  the  removal  of  the  diseased  part. ' '  *  Hess 
stated  that  until  the  conference  would  declare  boldly  that 
the  Talmud  had  no  significance  dogmatically  they  would 
have  no  basis  for  their  resolutions.  As  to  Schott 's  claim 
about  their  negative  attitude,  he  would  say  that  the  re- 
proach of  being  destroyers  is  more  applicable  to  the  rigid 
rabbinites, 2  since  they  deny  that  the  consciousness  of  the 
age  is  a  moving  force  with  many  Jews  of  the  present  day ; 
they  were  responsible  that  so  many  had  become  alienated, 
as  for  example  in  Frankfort.  In  the  discussion  on  the 
liturgy,  Samuel  Adler  used  the  following  strong  words: 
' '  What  right  we  have  to  reform !  the  traditional  right  to 
modify  the  Biblical  ceremonial  according  to  temporal  and 
local  conditions.  The  question  was  asked  often  whence 
we  obtained  that  right.  From  the  people.  The  free  will 
of  the  people  recognized  the  Talmudists,  the  free  will  of  the 
people  will  recognize  us  also.  We  too  are  Talmudists. 

1  Protokolle,  44. 

*IUd.;  cf.  also  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  97. 


THE    RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          207 

Hence  we  can  insist  on  this  same  right. ' '  And  during  the 
discussion  on  the  Sabbath,  Gotthold  Salomon  declared  that 
they  must  seek  to  save  the  Sabbath  as  soon  as  possible,  and 
strive  to  harmonize  the  Sabbath  laws  with  life  and  the  age : 
for  "life  must  be  regulated  by  and  permeated  with  religion. 
The  age  is  also  a  Bible  through  which  God  speaks  to 
Israel."1  These  expressions  illustrate  in  the  main  the 
spirit  of  the  conference;  it  was  emphatically  of  a  reform 
tendency ;  the  orthodox  and  the  conservatives  were  in  such 
a  minority  that  they  were  almost  a  negligible  quantity. 

This  being  the  first  large  gathering  of  Jewish  theologians 
since  the  inception  of  the  reform  movement,  it  was  but 
natural  that  voices  should  make  themselves  heard  demand- 
ing that  the  conference  state  what  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  Judaism  are :  for  it  was  felt  by  these  that  such  a 
declaration  of  principles  was  necessary  in  order  to  give 
the  conference  the  proper  foundation  whereon  to  build. 
It  was  the  same  sentiment  as  had  actuated  the  members 
of  the  Society  of  the  Friends  of  Reform  in  Frankfort2 
when  they  contended  that,  in  order  to  clear  the  controversial 
atmosphere  in  which  Judaism  was  enveloped  at  that  time, 
it  was  requisite  to  formulate  in  as  brief  a  space  as  possible 
the  essential  fundamentals  in  which  all  Jews  of  modern 
views  could  agree.  True,  the  question  of  formulating  a 
declaration  of  principles  was  not  one  of  the  set  subjects  of 
discussion  at  the  conference ;  still  it  was  referred  to  a  num- 
ber of  times  in  the  course  of  the  various  debates.  In  the 
discussion  on  the  Prayer-Book  Bodenheimer,  who  was  of  a 
markedly  conservative  tendency,  contended  that  before  any 
intelligent  action  could  be  taken  on  the  subject  of  determin- 
ing what  prayers  are  expressive  of  the  religious  convictions 
of  the  people  to-day  the  question  as  to  what  the  Jewish 
articles  of  belief  are  had  to  be  settled.  He  claimed  that 
the  greatest  confusion  existed  here,  that  even  Maimonides 


lProto7colle,  91. 
2  Supra,  162. 


208  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

contradicted  himself,  that  Chasdai  differed  with  him,  and 
that  Abarbanel  in  his  turn  differed  with  Chasdai. 1  He 
suggested,  therefore,  that  a  commission  be  appointed  to 
formulate  a  statement  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  Jew- 
ish belief.  In  this  he  received  the  endorsement  of  Hess  the 
radical,  who  advocated  likewise  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mission for  the  drafting  of  a  confession  of  belief  which 
should  state  what  the  conference  considers  the  essence  of 
Judaism,  and  in  what  it  conceives  the  relation  of  the  moral 
to  the  ceremonial  law  to  consist. 2  The  rabbi  of  Luxem- 
bourg, Samuel  Hirsch,  expressed  himself  in  a  manner  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  this;  he  too  was  a  radical  in  many 
of  his  opinions,  and  the  wide  difference  between  him  and 
Hess  on  this  vital  subject  is  most  suggestive  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  conference  and  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the 
many  individual  views  represented;  he  declared  that  he 
was  opposed  to  the  proposition  to  appoint  such  a  commis- 
sion, because  ' '  we  have  no  articles  of  belief  in  the  commonly 
accepted  interpretation  of  the  term,  viz.,  that  we  should  or 
must  believe  what  cannot  be  known  or  comprehended. ' ' 3 
Holdheim  too  took  strong  ground  against  the  formulation 
of  any  creed :  ' '  Every  Jew  is  obligated  by  his  birth ;  Juda- 
ism is  inalienable,  and  does  not  depend  on  the  acceptance 
of  any  dogma  according  to  this  or  that  interpretation. ' ' 4 
Formstecher  5  sided  with  Bodenheimer  and  Hess ;  he  averred 
that  in  all  things  there  must  be  a  principle  from  which  to 
proceed:  else  there  can  be  no  results.  "We  require  a 
principle  in  our  relations  with  our  congregations :  else  our 
work  will  be  open  to  suspicion  always,  and  some  passage 
from  some  Hebrew  book  will  always  be  able  to  be  cited 
against  us.  ...  I  do  not  demand  a  creed,  as  Hirsch  main- 
tains against  me,  but  we  must  have  a  principle,  a  rule  of 
procedure,  by  which  we  must  be  guided. "  6  In  more  or  less 

1  Protofcolle,  48.  'Ibid.,  53.  'Ibid.,  54.  *  Ibid.,  56. 

"Author  of  the  work  "Die  Eeligion  des  Geistes." 
6  Protolcolle,  66. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         209 

direct  wise  the  debatable  subject  of  creed  and  dogma  was 
touched  upon  in  these  various  utterances :  Are  there  dogmas 
in  Judaism  or  no?  is  still  a  favorite  theme  of  discussion, 
Is  a  set  creed  compatible  with  or  foreign  to  the  spirit  of 
Judaism?  remains  to  this  day  an  unsettled  point  of  de- 
bate ; 1  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  set  creed  is  a  great 

1  Ever  since  Moses  Mendelssohn  in  his  Jerusalem  claimed  that 
Judaism  has  no  dogmas  this  has  been  the  subject  of  discussion. 
Geiger  held  that  there  are  dogmas  in  Judaism,  but  no  creed  as  a 
condition  of  salvation,  I.  N.  J.,  VII  (1846),  222;  twenty  years 
later  he  wrote:  "Es  ist  in  Wahrheit  zum  Heile  fur  das  Juden- 
thum,  dass  es  in  ihm  nicht  zur  dogmatischen  Fixirung  irgend 
eines,  und  sei  es  auch  des  unzweifelhaftesten  und  des  unzweif- 
elsten  Gedanken  gekommen  ist,  zum  wahren  Heile  des  Juden- 
dem  in  der  Judenheit  herrschenden  Geiste  weiss. "  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  Vll, 
9;  see  also  ibid.,  I,  279.  Holdheim  taught  likewise  that  Judaism  has 
dogmas  but  does  not  make  their  acceptance  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of 
salvation  as  does  Christianity ;  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  225  ff .  See  the  interest- 
ing debate  on  this  subject  by  the  members  of  the  directorate  of  this 
congregation,  ibid.,  229  ff . ;  also  Holdheim,  Haben  die  Juden  Glaubens- 
artiTcel  oder  nicht?  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  II  (1838),  nos.  4-9;  and  Beligion- 
sprinzipien  des  reformierten  Judenthums,  Berlin,  1847,  "Die  heilige 
Schrif  t  hat  sich  nie  in  einem  Bekenntnisse  fixirt  usw. ' '  Hess  in  a  lead- 
ing article  in  his  Israelit  des  neunzelinten  Jahrhunderts  claimed  that  a 
creed  is  not  objectionable  if  it  be  understood  that  the  statement  of 
creed  is  merely  a  consensus  of  opinion,  and  that  it  is  left  to  each  one  to 
hold  that  conception  of  Judaism  which  appeals  to  his  thought  and  con- 
science; in  other  words,  a  creed  must  not  be  made  the  measure  of 
salvation,  but  is  to  be  considered  merely  as  a  definition  or  declaration 
of  principles,  VI  (1845),  330-1.  S.  Stern,  the  virtual  founder  of  the 
Berlin  Reform  Congregation,  contended  that  the  "definite  formula- 
tion of  principles  contradicts  altogether  the  thought  of  development 
whereon  reform  builds";  quoted  in  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  229; 
see  also  his  article  Die  Aufgabe  der  judischen  Gemeinde  zu  Berlin 
fur  die  Gegenwart  (1844),  in  Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutsch- 
land,  II,  359.  For  further  discussion  of  this  question  see  L.  Low, 
"Jiidische  Dogmen, "  in  Gesammelte  Schrif  ten,  I,  133-76,  Szegedin, 
1889;  S.  Schechter,  "The  Dogmas  of  Judaism,"  J.  Q.  E.,  I,  48-61, 
115-27;  B.  Felsenthal,  "Gibt  es  Dogmen  im  Judenthume?"  Tear 
Book  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Babbis,  VIII,  54  ff.; 
M.  L.  Margolis,  "The  Theological  Aspect  of  Reformed  Judaism," 
14 


210  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

obstacle  in  the  path  of  the  progressive  development  of  a 
religion,  and  that  therefore  reform  Judaism  must  always 
be  impatient  of  a  set  creed ; *  still  Formstecher  was  correct 
in  the  main  when  he  urged  that  the  conference  should 
formulate  a  declaration  of  principles.  Such  a  declaration 
was  necessary,  particularly  in  view  of  the  decided  differ- 
ences between  the  traditionalists  and  the  reformers  on  a 
number  of  controverted  points.  Such  a  declaration  need 
not  nor  should  it  have  been  regarded  as  of  a  fixed  character ; 
any  future  conference  should  have  been  considered  at  lib- 
erty to  modify  it  as  soon  as  the  opinion  of  an  age  concern- 
ing any  article  of  such  a  declaration  should  have  under- 
gone a  change.  A  creed  is  fixed  and  binding,  a  declaration 
of  principles  is  fluid ;  possibly,  however,  the  reformers  as 
a  body  had  not  yet  reached  that  unanimity  of  opinion  which 
would  have  made  such  a  declaration  possible.  Twenty- 
five  years  later  the  idea  to  which  Formstecher  had  given 
expression  at  Brunswick  was  carried  into  practical  effect 
when  the  conference  of  rabbis  at  Philadelphia  adopted  as 
the  working  basis  of  the  conference  a  statement  of  prin- 
ciples. 2  This  was  not  a  new  formulation  of  a  creed,  for 
most  of  the  men  present  at  that  conference  were  reform- 
ers of  an  advanced  type,  and  would,  therefore,  not  have 
given  their  suffrages  to  the  manufacture  of  any  creed ;  that 
they  adopted  a  declaration  of  principles  is  indication  suffi- 
cient of  the  essential  difference  between  this  and  a  state- 
ment of  creed  binding  upon  the  individual  as  a  necessary 

Hid.,  XIII,  192  ff . ;  K.  Kohler,  ibid.,  XV,  83  ff . ;  F.  Perles, ' '  Bousset  's 
Religion  des  Judenthums  im  neutestamentlichen  Zeitalteter  kritisch 
untersucht,"  112-116,  Berlin,  1903;  O.  J.  Simon,  " Authority  and 
Dogma  in  Judaism, ' '  J.  Q.  E.,  V,  231-43 ;  H.  Hyamson,  ibid.,  469-82 ; 
M.  Giidemann,  Das  Judenthum  in  seinen  Grundziigen  und  nach  seiner 
geschichtlichen  Grundlagen  dargestellt,  67.  Wein,  1892.  Ibid., 
"Jiidische  Apologetik,"  184.  Glogan,  1906. 

1  See  the  author 's  ' '  Tendencies  of  Thought  in  Modern  Judaism, ' ' 
New  World,  IV,  610.     Boston,  1895. 
2  Infra,  Chap.  XII. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          211 

condition  of  salvation. *  Although  the  Brunswick  con- 
ference adopted  no  declaration  of  principles,  still  there  was 
an  approach  to  this  in  the  action  touching  the  answers 
given  by  the  French  Synhedrin  to  the  questions  of  Napo- 
leon in  1807. 2  Philippson  had  moved  at  the  afternoon 
session  of  June  14  that  the  conference  approve  the  attitude 
taken  by  the  Synhedrin  for  two  reasons;  first,  to  give  as- 
surance to  the  various  governments  of  the  patriotic  attach- 
ment of  the  Jews,  and  to  show  that  there  is  nothing  in 
Judaism  at  variance  with  the  best  and  highest  interests  of 
the  state ; 3  and,  secondly,  to  evince  by  this  approval  that 
the  conference  was  the  successor  in  spirit  of  that  notable 
assembly.  By  basing  upon  the  French  Synhedrin,  the 
first  gathering  of  Jewish  representatives  resulting  from 
the  changes  superinduced  by  the  political  emancipation  of 
the  Jews  which  was  one  of  the  forerunners  of  the  religious 
emancipation,  viz.,  the  reform  movement,  the  conference, 
whether  consciously  or  unconsciously,  declared  itself  the 
official  voice  of  the  modern  spirit.  Philippson 's  motion 
was  referred  to  a  commission  consisting  of  Holdheim, 
Salomon,  and  Frankfurter,  who  reported  at  the  session  of 
June  18.  The  conference  endorsed  the  answers  of  the 
Synhedrin,  making  slight  changes  and  additions  here  and 
there.  The  consideration  of  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  intermarriage  of  Jew  and  Christian  was  permitted 
caused  a  stormy  debate.  The  French  Synhedrin  had  de- 
clared that  a  marriage  between  a  Jew  and  a  Christian  which 
had  been  solemnized  by  a  civil  officer  must  be  considered 
valid;  the  commission  of  the  conference  reported  thus: 
11  Marriages  between  Jews  and  Christians,  marriages  be- 
tween monotheists  generally,  are  not  forbidden."  Hess 
desired  the  insertion  of  the  additional  words,  "and  the 
rabbi  is  permitted  to  solemnize  them ; ' '  however,  he  re- 

17.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  194-7. 

2  Appendix  I  to  ProtoTcolle,  94-8. 

5  Appendix  I  to  ProtoTcolle,  20. 


212  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ceived  no  support  in  this  extreme  attitude.  S.  Adler  de- 
clared himself  as  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  this  paragraph 
because  it  did  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  a  rabbinical  con- 
ference: "How  will  the  permission  of  intermarriage  aid 
towards  the  reawakening  of  the  religious  spirit  ? ' '  he  asked 
pointedly.  However,  he  went  on  to  say :  "  If  they  were  to 
make  a  declaration  on  the  subject,  their  approval  of  inter- 
marriage must  be  coupled  with  the  demand  that  the  chil- 
dren born  of  such  marriages  must  be  reared  in  the  Jewish 
faith."  This  was  the  sense  of  the  majority,  and  the  report 
of  the  commission  was  amended  to  read :  ' '  The  marriage  of 
a  Jew  with  a  Christian,  marriage  with  adherents  of  mono- 
theistic faiths  in  general,  is  not  forbidden,  if  the  laws  of 
the  state  permit  the  parents  to  rear  the  children  of  such  a 
union  also  in  the  Jewish  faith."  * 

The  answer  to  the  question  concerning  the  sentiment 
entertained  by  the  Jews  towards  the  land  of  their  birth  or 
adoption  expresses  excellently  the  political  creed  of  the 
modern  Jew:  "The  Jew  is  bound  to  consider  the  land  to 
which  he  belongs  by  birth  and  civic  conditions  as  his  father- 
land, to  protect  it,  and  to  obey  all  its  laws. ' ' 2  That  the 
members  of  the  conference  would  take  this  stand  was  fore- 
shadowed at  a  previous  session_during  the  discussion  of  a 
proposition  submitted  by  Dr.  Mayer  of  Hechingen  on 
' '  Efforts  towards  the  Emancipation  of  the  Jewish  Church. ' ' 
In  this  discussion  the  opinions  of  the  rabbis  present  on  the 
religious  and  political  elements,  as  far  as  they  touched 
Jewish  thought  and  practice,  were  given  expression  to. 
Holdheim  declared  that  the  religious  principle  must  be  kept 
clearly  distinct  from  the  political.  "It  is  difficult,"  said 
he,  "to  keep  the  two  separate,  because  they  have  been  con- 
nected closely  for  so  long  a  time.  For  this  very  reason  it 
is  important  that  two  things  which  have  been  joined  so  im- 
properly should  be  sundered  finally.  When  and  how  shall 
this  separation  take  place?  That  we  cannot  determine 

*ProtoTcotte,  73.  a76id.,  78,  79. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         213 

here  and  now,  but  it  is  the  task  of  the  present  age.  We  do 
not  grant  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  'Christian  state,' 
and  certainly  we  should  not  speak  of  a  '  Jewish  state, '  or  of 
the  overlapping  of  the  religious  and  the  political  in  Juda- 
ism. .  .  .  Let  the  Jewish  clergyman  concern  himself  with 
religious  instruction ;  that  is  plain !  only  let  there  be  clear- 
ness, clearness  in  our  religious  conceptions. ' ' *  Holdheim 
expressed  here  the  thought  that  he  gave  voice  to  in  many 
different  forms  in  his  published  writings,  both  before  and 
after  this  conference ; 2  the  separation  of  the  religious  and 
political  elements  became  in  time  one  of  the  marked  fea- 
tures of  the  reform  movement,  which,  therefore,  is  incom- 
patible with  a  movement  like  political  Zionism.  So  also 
Frankfurter  declared  that  nothing  was  of  greater  impor- 
tance than  that  they  keep  the  religious  and  the  political 
clearly  distinct;  "religiously  speaking,  we  form  a  closely 
joined  community,  not  over  against  the  state,  but  within  the 
state;  but  in  all  broadly  human  and  political  activities  we 
consider  ourselves  subjects  and  members  of  the  state  on  each 
and  every  count. ' ' 3  The  special  subject  under  discussion 
was  the  supervision  of  Jewish  schools.  Dr.  Mayer  of 
Hechingen  had  proposed  that  the  governments  should  be 
petitioned  to  place  the  Jewish  day  schools  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  rabbi  instead  of  a  non-Jewish  official,  as  was 
the  case  in  many  instances;  the  conference  negatived  this 
by  a  large  majority,  the  sentiment  being  that  such  a  demand 
would  assume  the  appearance  of  political  separatism. 

The  most  important  and  lengthiest  debate  during  the 
sessions  of  the  conference  was  on  the  question  of  the  re- 
form of  the  liturgy.  The  debate  was  occasioned  by  the 

1  ProtoTcolle,  29. 

'Autonomie  der  Eabbinen,  53,  Schwerin,  1843;  Das  Eeligiose  und 
Politische  im  Judenthume,  Schwerin,  1845;  cf.  also  Bitter,  Die 
jildische  Eeformgemeinde  zu  Berlin,  50,  Berlin,  1902;  Levin,  Die 
Eeform  des  Judenthums,  46-50,  Berlin,  1895;  the  author 's  "  Samuel 
Holdheim,  Jewish  Reformer,"  Year  Boole  of  the  Central  Conference 
of  American  EdbUs,  XVI,  316-18. 

'  Protolcolle,  27. 


214  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

motion  of  Dr.  Joseph  Maier  of  Stuttgart,  the  president  of 
the  conference,  that  a  commission  be  appointed  to  report 
to  the  next  conference  on  the  following  six  points:  (1) 
Whether  and  in  how  far  the  Hebrew  language  was  nec- 
essary for  the  public  religious  services,  and,  even  if  not 
necessary,  whether  its  retention  appeared  advisable  for  the 
present  among  the  Jewish  congregations  of  the  German 
fatherland  ?  ( 2 )  In  how  far  the  dogma  of  the  Messiah  and 
all  kindred  doctrines  must  receive  recognition  in  the 
prayers?  (3)  Whether  the  repetition  of  the  mt?y  nJDB> 
(the  eighteen  benedictions)  was  necessary,  and  whether 
the  Mussafim  must  be  retained?  (4)  In  what  manner  the 
minn  nwnp  and  D^fcOP  "T  (the  reading  from  the  Law  and 
the  calling  up  to  the  Law)  could  be  arranged  so  as  to  cause 
less  disturbance  than  at  present,  and  to  further  congrega- 
tional devotion  and  edification?  (5)  What  steps  could  be 
taken  to  make  the  ISIfc?  njnpn  and  rtftf  n^tw  (the  blowing 
of  the  ram 's  horn  on  the  New  Year 's  Day,  and  the  shaking 
of  the  palm-branches  on  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles)  less 
objectionable  to  the  aesthetic  sense?  (6)  Whether  the 
organ  is  permissible  in  the  synagogue? 

These  questions  involved  so  many  points  which  were  the 
subjects  of  heated  controversy  that  it  cannot  excite  wonder 
that  the  discussion  that  ensued  upon  their  presentation  to 
the  conference  touched  most  of  the  subjects  that  emphasized 
the  differences  between  traditionalists  and  reformers.  The 
public  service  is  the  official  expression  of  the  religious  con- 
victions of  the  community,  therefore  it  is  almost  as  a  matter 
of  course  the  first  point  to  which  the  attention  of  reform- 
ers is  directed.  As  has  been  shown, 1  the  earliest  efforts  of 
the  new  movement  in  Judaism  had  been  directed  towards 
a  reform  of  the  public  services;  the  main  attention,  how- 
ever, had  been  paid  to  aestheticizing  the  service,  of  making 
it  decorous  where  it  had  been  disorderly,  of  excising 
piyyutim,  and  thus  shortening  it,  of  introducing  choral 

1  Supra,  20,  35,  45. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         215 

music  and  the  German  sermon ;  but  less  thought  had  been 
given  to  the  matter  of  making  the  prayers  express  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  reform  movement.  So  much  was  involved  in 
this  reform  of  the  ritual,  so  many  points  of  detail,  that  it  is 
not  surprising  that  the  men  of  that  time  who  were  in  the 
very  thick  of  the  controversy  could  not  see  the  forest  be- 
cause of  the  trees.  The  six  questions  upon  which  the  dis- 
cussion in  the  Brunswick  conference  was  based  indicated  ex- 
cellently the  difficulties  which  a  comprehensive  reform  of 
the  liturgy  was  compelled  to  encounter.  Inasmuch,  how- 
ever, as  the  motion  was  simply  to  refer  these  questions  to  a 
commission  to  report  to  the  next  conference,  and  the  dis- 
cussion on  this  report  will  have  to  receive  detailed  con- 
sideration in  its  proper  place,  it  is  unnecessary  to  reproduce 
here  the  opinions  expressed  at  this  conference  on  the  points 
at  issue.  Sufficient  to  say  that  the  recommendation  to 
elect  such  a  commission  was  acted  upon  favorably,  and  the 
following  rabbis  were  constituted  members  thereof —Joseph 
Maier,  Levi  Herzfeld,  Levi  Bodenheimer,  Samuel  Holdheim, 
and  Gotthold  Salomon. 

Another  subject  that  aroused  prolonged  discussion  was 
the  so-called  oath  more  Judaico.  *  Whenever  a  Jew  ap- 
peared as  a  witness  before  a  court,  and  the  oath  was  ad- 
ministered to  him,  the  whole  proceeding  was  extremely 
humiliating  to  the  self-respect  of  the  Jewish  witness;  he 
had  to  go  to  the  synagogue  accompanied  by  the  judge,  the 
rabbi,  and  ten  Jews  above  the  age  of  thirteen,  and,  decked 
with  the  tallith  2  and  the  tefillin, 3  had  to  take  the  scroll 
of  the  law  upon  his  arm ;  the  rabbi  had  to  impress  upon  him 
the  solemnity  of  the  oath;  the  witness  then  spoke  a  set 
formula  and  had  to  give  assurance  that  he  would  not  at- 
tempt to  have  the  oath  abrogated  by  a  Jewish  ecclesias- 
tical court,  and  that  he  would  not  consider  it  annulled  by 
the  Kol  Nidre  prayer  spoken  on  the  eve  of  the  Day  of 
Atonement:  that  he  did  not  consider  the  Christian  an 

1  Protokolle,  33-42.          2  The  praying  shawl.          'The  phylacteries. 


216  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

idolater,  etc.  Much  was  written  at  this  time  by  Jewish 
scholars  on  this  subject, 1  and  attempts  were  made  to  have 
this  barbarous  mediaeval  proceeding  abolished;  possibly 
the  most  famous  case  was  that  tried  in  Saverne  in  which 
Cremieux,  the  future  senator  of  France,  defended  M. 
Lazare  Isidor,  at  the  time  rabbi  of  Pfalzburg,  and  later 
chief  rabbi  of  France.  Isidor  had  refused  to  permit  the 
administration  of  the  oath  more  Judaico,  had  locked  the 
door  of  the  synagogue,  and  had  declared  that  he  would 
never  permit  such  a  profanation  of  God's  name. 2  This 
case  aroused  so  much  attention  that  it  was  the  beginning  of 
the  final  abolition  of  the  oath  more  Judaico  in  France. 
The  Brunswick  conference  took  a  firm  stand  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  declared  that  "the  oath  of  a  Jew  in  the  name  of 
God  is  binding  without  further  ceremony. ' ' 3  The  con- 
ference declared  further  that  the  Kol  Nidre  prayer  was 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  Ill  (1839),  293;  IV  (1840),  123,  133,  158,  166,  174, 
189,  307;  Israelitische  Annalen,  II  (1840),  243;  Zeitschrift  fur  die 
religiosen  Interessen  des  Judenthums,  I  (1844),  301;  J.  N.  J., 
V  (1844),  277,  327  (Holdheim) ;  ibid.,  375  (Einhorn) ;  ibid., 
VI,  917  (Holdheim 'a  answer  to  Einhorn);  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX  (1845), 
194  ff.,  274  ff.;  289  ff.  (Einhorn 's  answer  to  Holdheim); 
Die  Reform  des  Judenthums  (a  magazine  which  was  edited  by 
A.  Adler  and  H.  Wagner  in  the  interest  of  the  rabbinical  con- 
ferences, and  appeared  only  one  year,  1846),  9,  17.  See  also 
Frankel's  book,  Die  Eidesleistung  der  Juden  in  theologischer  und 
historischer  Beziehung,  Dresden,  1847;  Leopold  Stein,  Der  Eid  more 
Judaico,  wie  solcher  bei  den  Gerichten  der  freien  Stadt  Frankfurt 
noch  in  Uebung  ist,  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1847;  ibid.,  I.  N.  J.,  73-6;  D. 
Eothschild,  Der  Eid  der  Juden,  Brilon,  1847;  cf.  also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X 
(1846),  188-91,  206-7,  220-2,  248-9,  261-3,  616,  667;  XIV,  137.  For 
a  historical  sketch  see  Zur  Geschichte  des  Judeneides,  in  L.  Geiger's 
Juden  in  Berlin,  265-80,  Berlin,  1871.  The  oath  more  Judaico, 
though  abolished  in  lands  where  the  Jew  has  received  the  rights  of 
man,  was  still  administered  in  Eoumania  as  late  as  1904;  Jewish 
Chronicle,  Aug.  19,  1904. 

2  Israelitische   Annalen,   II    (1840),   57;    Die   Eeform   des   Juden- 
thums, 9. 

8  Protolcolle,  41. 


THE   KABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         217 

unessential,  and  the  members  present  promised  to  use  every 
effort  to  eliminate  it  from  their  services  on  the  coming  Day 
of  Atonement. 1 

While  the  Jews  were  separate  alien  communities  with  no 
political  rights  or  affiliations,  they  had  their  own  jurisdic- 
tion, and  were  governed  in  many  vital  relations  of  life,  as 
marriage,  divorce,  and  the  like,  by  their  own  laws.  When 
they  were  striving  for  civil  emancipation  and  were  being 
incorporated  in  the  body  politic  in  various  states,  it  was 
found  that  their  traditional  laws  came  into  conflict  fre- 
quently with  the  laws  of  the  land.  Reforms  were  neces- 

1  This  prayer,  which  is  spoken  at  the  opening  of  the  service  on  the 
Eve  of  Atonement  in  congregations  which  use  the  traditional  liturgy, 
is  one  of  the  favorite  objects  of  attack  of  anti- Jewish  writers;  they 
declare  that  thereby  the  Jew  absolves  himself  from  all  vows  and 
promises  that  he  might  make  during  the  coming  year ;  however, 
Jewish  authorities  have  always  interpreted  this  to  refer  to  such  vows 
as  the  individual  assumes  voluntarily,  and  in  which  no  other  persons 
or  interests  are  involved ;  in  other  words,  ' '  the  formula  has  reference 
only  to  such  vows  in  which  the  relation  of  the  individual  to  his 
conscience  or  his  Heavenly  Father  is  involved."  Still,  because  of 
the  misinterpretation  to  which  it  was  liable,  it  was  important  to 
eliminate  it  from  the  liturgy.  As  early  as  the  fifteenth  century 
Isaac  ben  Sheshet  wrote  to  another  rabbi  to  make  the  attempt  to 
abolish  the  Kol  Nidre,  saying,  that  if  he  were  to  do  this  he  would  gain 
the  praise  of  all  wise  men  (Eesp.,  394)  ;  quoted  by  Geiger  in  Freund's 
Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  3-4.  See  also  Geiger,  Nachgelassene 
Schriften,  I,  134-6;  Eevue  des  Etudes  Juives,  XXXIX,  78;  Jewish 
Encyclopedia,  art.  "Kol  Nidre, "  Many  congregations  throughout 
Germany  acted  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Brunswick  Confer- 
ence and  eliminated  the  Kol  Nidre  prayer  from  the  service  on  the 
following  Day  of  Atonement.  Leopold  Stein,  the  poet  among  the 
reform  rabbis,  wrote  a  German  hymn  which  was  set  to  the  traditional 
music  of  the  Kol  Nidre.  In  the  interesting  reminiscences  of  the 
nonagenarian,  Eev.  Prof.  D.  W.  Marks,  of  London,  recently  published, 
he  states  that  Stein  told  him  that  when  he  wished  to  abolish  the 
Kol  Nidre,  his  congregation  was  reluctant  to  dispense  with  the 
melody;  he  had  therefore  to  promise  that  he  would  compose  a  poem 
which  could  be  set  to  the  same  music.  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  11, 
1907,  18. 


218  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

sary.  It  was  for  this  reason  that  Jolowicz  presented  a 
resolution  calling  for  a  revision  of  the  Jewish  marriage 
laws.  Holdheim  moved  that  a  commission  be  appointed 
to  report  to  the  next  conference  a  plan  for  the  reform  of 
the  marriage  law,  this  being  demanded  urgently  by  the 
conditions  and  circumstances  of  the  time.  This  was  agreed 
to,  and  Holdheim,  Herzfeld,  Maier,  Bodenheimer,  and 
Geiger  were  elected  members  of  this  commission. 

Shortly  before  the  convening  of  this  conference  the  Jew- 
ish world  had  been  agitated  by  the  circumcision  contro- 
versy. *  An  echo  of  this  agitation  sounded  in  the  con- 
ference hall  when  Hess  introduced  the  following  resolu- 
tion: "Be  it  resolved  by  this  conference  that,  although  it 
has  learned  with  pain  that  some  co-religionists  observe  no 
longer  a  command  so  universally  considered  sacred  as  cir- 
cumcision, yet  it  declares  against  all  external  coercion  and 
exclusion  as  has  been  demanded  by  a  number  of  rabbis, 
and  expresses  the  opinion  that  those  who  do  not  observe 
the  command  of  circumcision  are  to  be  considered  members 
of  the  Jewish  religious  community  despite  this,  and  as 
admissible  to  the  taking  of  the  oath,  the  giving  of  testi- 
mony, and  the  contracting  of  marriage  with  a  Jewess." 
The  resolution  was  disposed  of  by  the  endorsement  of  the 
suggestion  of  the  president  to  the  effect  that  since  this 
matter  was  the  subject  of  such  bitter  discussion  in  Jewry 
just  at  this  time  it  be  passed  over,  it  being  inadvisable  to 
give  occasion  to  the  play  of  passion  on  the  floor  of  the  con- 
ference. 

At  the  closing  session  of  the  conference  Samuel  Hirsch 
proposed  that  the  conference  take  steps  to  reconcile  the 
differences  between  Jewish  doctrine  and  practice  by  the 
abrogation  or  the  amelioration  of  a  number  of  Sabbath  and 
dietary  laws.  He  stated  that  the  matter  would  not  be  so 
grave  were  the  Sabbath  laws  disregarded  only  in  the  house- 
hold economy,  but  that  the  public  desecration  of  the  Sab- 

1  Supra,  181  ff. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         210 

bath  demanded  that  something  be  done  to  save  the  situa- 
tion. If  the  members  of  the  conference  would  address 
themselves  to  this  subject  in  full  earnestness  they  would 
give  evidence  to  the  world  that  they  are  not  negativists 
and  destroyers,  but  conservers  and  builders. x  Schott, 
the  ultra-conservative,  held  that  no  action  was  necessary 
on  their  part,  *  *  since  the  Sabbath  laws  do  not  conflict  with 
their  duties  as  men  and  citizens,  rabbinism  having  per- 
mitted certain  necessary  ameliorations. "  2  A.  Adler,  after 
declaring  that  the  modern  point  of  view  is  altogether  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  Talmud,  proceeded  to  say  that ' '  there 
is  a  cleft  between  life  and  the  traditional  Sabbath  observ- 
ance. We  must  reconcile  this  difference,  not  continue 
it. ' ' *  Herxheimer  called  attention  to  the  difficulties  which 
were  confronting  the  rabbi  constantly  because  of  the  in- 
consistency between  his  preaching  and  teaching  and  the 
practice  of  his  people.  This  would  continue  until  life  and 
profession  would  be  reconciled. 8 

Holdheim  declared  flatly:  "We  cannot  adopt  the  rab- 
binical conception  of  the  Sabbath.  We  must  ask  our  con- 
science what  is  the  intent  of  Sabbath  observance.  Perhaps 
we  can  preserve  Sabbath  observance  without  Sabbath 
rest;"3  and  Salomon  exclaimed:  "We  must  attempt  to 
save  the  Sabbath  as  soon  as  possible,  and  to  reconcile  the 
Sabbath  laws  with  life  and  with  our  age.  For  after  all  the 
object  of  religion  must  be  to  regulate  and- permeate  life."  4 

So  important  a  question,  possibly  the  most  important 
among  the  practical  problems  in  Jewish  life,  demanded  the 
most  thorough  discussion  and  consideration;  this  it  could 
not  receive  in  the  closing  hours  df  a  conference.  A  Sab- 
bath Commission  was  therefore  elected  to  report  on  the 
subject  at  the  coming  conference  '  the  commission  consisted 
of  Geiger,  A.  Adler,  S.  Adler,  Wechsler,  and  Kahn. 

The  conference  adjourned  on  Wednesday,  June  19,  after 
determining  to  meet  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main  on  July  15 

1  Protolcolle,  87-8.  2  Ibid.,  89.  'Ibid.,  90.  *  Ibid.,  91. 


220  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  following  year.  No  event  in  that  agitated  period 
stirred  the  Jewish  communities  more  than  did  this  confer- 
ence. Denunciations  fierce  and  invectives  severe  were 
hurled  at  the  rabbis  who  had  met  at  Brunswick.  The 
conference  was  assailed  as  negative  and  destructive.  At- 
tacks by  opponents  called  forth  defenses  by  friends;  arti- 
cles in  newspapers,  essays  in  magazines,  pamphlets  appeared 
in  rapid  succession ;  scathing  criticism  x  on  the  one  hand 
and  admiring  laudation 2  on  the  other  characterized  the 
temper  of  the  writers ;  the  orthodox  accused  the  conference 
of  having  undermined  the  very  foundations  of  Judaism, 
the  reformers  acclaimed  it  for  having  given  voice  bravely 
to  the  true  spirit  of  Judaism.  Only  the  more  important 
of  these  controversial  publications  can  be  referred  to. 

Most  unexpected  was  the  criticism  of  the  conference  by 
Ludwig  Philippson,  who  had  been  mainly  instrumental  in 
calling  it  into  being;  the  conference  had  traveled  a  path 
far  different  from  that  which  he  had  expected  and  hoped 
that  it  would  take.  In  discussing  its  work,  he  wrote  that 
it  was  unfortunate  that  the  conference  had  developed  a 
critical  tendency  instead  of  devoting  itself  to  the  task  of 
reviving  and  creating;  it  criticized  existing  institutions, 
but  paid  no  attention  to  organizing  other  institutions  which 
the  practical  needs  of  the  people  required;  had  the  con- 
ference been  a  scientific  congress,  learned  criticism  would 
have  been  in  place,  but  the  conference  was  intended  to 
contribute  primarily  towards  awakening  and  strengthening 
the  religious  consciousness  of  the  people,  and  in  this  prov- 
ince the  critical  spirit  can  accomplish  nothing.3  He 
regretted  beyond  measure  that  the  principle  of  compromise 

(Prinzip  der  Vermittelung)  did  not  guide  the  deliberations 

i 

1  David  Cassel,  Woher  und  WoUn?  12.     Berlin,  1845. 

2  S.  Stern,  Die  gegenwiirtige  Bewegung  im  Judenthume,  42.     Ber- 
lin, 1845.     A  poem  dedicated  to  the  conference  by  a  Christian  ad- 
mirer was  republished  many  years  later.     A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LII  (1888),  79. 

'A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  385. 


THE  EABBINICAL   CONFEBENCES,   1844-1846         221 

of  the  conference;  this  represented  his  standpoint;  those 
who  were  guided  by  this  principle  wished  to  build  on 
historical  foundations,  recognizing  the  needs  of  the  present 
and  having  an  eye  to  the  future,  but  they  would  not 
abrogate  existing  customs  and  ceremonies  until  they  had 
something  positive  to  take  their  place;  the  misfortune 
was  that  the  conference  was  dominated  by  such  as  had  an 
abstract  ideal  of  positive  religion,  which  they  pursued 
without  regard  for  the  past,  and  for  whom  nothing  had 
any  value  except  that  which  comported  with  the  demands 
of  cold  reason  and  the  critical  faculty. *  Philippson  was 
of  a  decidedly  practical  bent;  he  felt  that  reform  must 
move  slowly  and  accommodate  itself  to  existing  conditions ; 
it  was  his  firm  conviction  that  if  the  conference  would 
call  into  being  practical  institutions  like  a  rabbinical  semi- 
nary, a  publication  society  and  the  like,  it  would  do  much 
more  for  the  religious  advancement  of  the  people  than  by 
the  discussion  of  abstract  religious  ideas.  The  philosophi- 
cal principles  of  the  reform  movement  received  but  little 
consideration  in  his  writings ;  he  praised  the  conference  for 
not  having  formulated  a  declaration  of  principles,  and 
stated  that  in  future  conferences  the  conservative  element 
must  be  strengthened,  for  this  alone  would  ensure  their 
efficacy,  authority,  and  beneficial  influence. 

The  individual  criticism  of  the  conference  which  aroused 
the  greatest  attention  was  that  of  Zacharias  Frankel.  2  He 
claimed  that  the  members  of  the  conference  were  not  im- 
pressed sufficiently  with  the  significance  and  gravity  of 
their  task,  that  they  were  not  careful  enough  in  their  utter- 
ances and  proposals,  and  that  they  did  not  keep  in  view  the 
religious  state  of  the  people.  He  held  that  a  rabbinical 
conference  cannot  pass  resolutions,  only  a  synod  can  do 
this,  a  conference  can  only  discuss  and  deliberate.  The 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  387. 

2 ' '  Die  Rabbinerversammlung  zu  Braunschweig, ' '  in  Zeitschrift  fur 
die  religiosen  Inter  essen  des  Judenthums,  I  (1844),  289-308. 


222  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Brunswick  conference  discussed  the  weightiest  matters; 
in  a  number  of  instances  the  members  showed  their  un- 
preparedness  and  incapacity.  Thus  in  the  discussion  on 
the  mixed  marriage  question  the  attitude  of  the  French 
Synhedrin  had  been  misrepresented;  the  Synhedrin  had 
not  declared  that  ' '  the  marriage  of  a  Jew  with  a  Christian 
is  not  forbidden,"  as  the  conference  had  reported,  but 
that  ''the  marriages  between  Jews  and  Christians  which 
had  been  performed  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the 
civil  code  are  binding  civilly,  and  although  they  cannot  be 
solemnized  religiously,  they  are  not  anathema."  He  also 
blamed  the  conference  for  applying  the  scalpel  of  criticism 
to  customs  and  ceremonies  close  and  dear  to  the  heart  of 
the  people ;  what  the  people  consider  edifying  and  binding 
must  be  respected ;  the  conference  had  made  the  mistake  of 
keeping  in  view  only  the  i  l  age, ' '  and  not  the  '  *  faith ; ' '  the 
members  had  spoken  constantly  of  the  spirit  of  the  age, 
but  did  not  bear  in  mind  the  warm  religious  sentiment  of 
the  people  who  still  clung  to  many  a  form  and  custom  in 
which  the  religious  philosopher,  standing  on  the  advanced 
intellectual  outposts  of  the  time,  recognizes  only  a  meaning- 
less survival  of  the  past,  but  which  may  yet  have  power  to 
move  and  edify.  Frankel's  attack  called  forth  many 
answers,  notably  from  Holdheim, 1  Maier, 2  the  president 
of  the  conference,  and  Samuel  Hirsch, 3  all  of  whom  de- 
fended the  conference  warmly.  The  first  named  took  pains 
to  show  how  fallacious  was  Frankel's  argument  that  the 
members  of  the  conference  should  not  have  criticized  such 
religious  forms  and  beliefs  as  were  close  to  the  heart  of  the 
people,  and  still  had  power  to  move  them ;  superstitions 

1 ' '  Die  erste  Rabbinerversammlung  und  Herr  Dr.  Frankel. ' ' 
Schwerin,  1845. 

2 "Die  erste  Rabbinerversammlung  und  ihre  Gegner. "  Stuttgart, 
1845. 

8 ' '  Erwiderung  auf  Herrn  Dr.  Frankel 's  Angriff  gegen  die  Bab- 
binerversammlung, "  Orient,  V  (1844),  378-82. 


THE   KABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          223 

often  have  this  power,  shall  superstitions  never  be  attacked 
for  this  reason?  who  are  the  better  judges  of  what  is  the 
truth  of  religion,  the  people  or  the  religious  guides?  the 
time-server  has  his  hand  on  the  people's  pulse,  the  true 
leader,  worthy  of  the  name,  will  not  be  deterred  in  his 
course,  no  matter  what  the  people  may  believe  or  think. 
Even  Frankel  stated  in  another  connection  that  everything 
is  not  as  it  should  be  in  Jewry,  and  advocated  reforms  be- 
cause of  the  conflict  between  life  and  the  faith ; 1  but  there 
is  no  such  conflict,  Holdheim  goes  on  to  say;  the  conflict 
is  between  life  and  the  Talmudical  interpretation  of  the 
faith,  between  life  and  rabbinical  formalism  and  cere- 
monialism, and  not  between  life  and  Judaism;  there  must 
be  a  thorough  reform  of  traditional  rabbinical  Judaism  and 
the  conflict  will  disappear  from  the  life  of  the  modern 
Jew.  Frankel  himself  is  not  clear;  now  he  advocates  re- 
form, and  again  he  decries  it;  let  him  be  honest  and  not 
attempt  to  attain  to  a  supreme  position  in  the  estimation 
of  the  common  people  by  such  palaver  to  the  effect  that 
what  still  appeals  to  the  bulk  of  the  people  has  religious 
validity;  the  majority  rule  is  not  the  gauge  by  which  the 
truth  is  to  be  measured. 

Dr.  Maier,  the  president  of  the  conference,  in  his  defense 
touches  the  same  point;  he  says  that  if  Frankel's  conten- 
tion be  true  that  the  popular  sanction  of  religious  forms 
and  institutions  must  guide  their  observance  or  discon- 
tinuance, the  function  of  religious  leaders  would  be  that  of 
grave-diggers  who  have  only  to  bury  decently  what  has 
disappeared  from  the  life  of  the  people;  he  puts  this  apt 
query  to  Frankel,  "Suppose  that  it  had  so  chanced  that 
instead  of  becoming  chief  rabbi  of  Dresden  you  had  be- 
come chief  rabbi  of  Moldavia  or  Wallachia,  where  Chassid- 
ism  which  finds  religious  edification  and  satisfaction  in 

1  Holdheim  refers  evidently  to  Frankel's  article,  "Ueber  Eeformen 
im  Judenthume, ' '  in  Zeitschrift  filr  die  religiosen  Interessen  des 
Judenthums,  I  (1844),  1-27. 


224      THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  observance  of  senseless  cabbalistical  customs  is  rampant 
— Chassidism  which  considers  holy  and  God-pleasing  many 
acts  that  true  piety  is  backward  in  even  mentioning— 
would  you  hesitate  for  one  moment  in  attacking  and  re- 
moving these  customs,  even  though,  to  use  your  own 
phrase,  'they  had  received  popular  sanction  and  acknowl- 
edgment?' The  revealed  will  of  God  is  the  incontestable 
standard  for  reforms,  not  the  will  of  a  party,  even  though 
that  party  form  for  the  nonce  an  overwhelming  majority." 
Every  command,  every  institution  whose  retention  can  only 
harm  the  essence  of  religion,  and  which  has  either  no  foun- 
dation in  Scripture  or  was  ordained  for  a  certain  time 
that  is  past,  or  a  certain  political  phase  that  has  ceased, 
must  be  surrendered  or  changed,  even  though  Talmud  and 
Shulchan  Aruk  declare  it  to  be  Mosaic  and  of  eternal 
validity ;  on  the  other  hand,  every  command,  every  institu- 
tion which  strengthens  the  true  content  of  religion  must 
be  retained,  even  though  it  emanate  from  the  latest  teach- 
ers of  the  people.  The  acceptance  of  such  recommenda- 
tions and  proposals  made  by  the  religious  leaders  depends 
not  on  them.  They  cannot  force  this  acceptance,  for  they 
have  no  police  power,  nor  have  they  the  slightest  wish  to 
exercise  such  power.  Theirs  it  is  only  to  fulfill  the  duties 
of  their  office  and  to  show  the  people  the  way.  This,  con- 
tinues the  president,  was  the  standpoint  of  the  conference.1 
A  number  of  men  had  gathered  "to  take  counsel  together 
as  to  what  must  be  done  for  the  preservation  of  the  religion, 
and  they  had  paid  especial  attention  to  those  religious  in- 
stitutions and  customs,  the  reform  of  which  was  necessary 
and  urgent."  After  reviewing  and  rebutting  Frankel's 
criticisms  of  the  specific  points  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
conference,  Maier  closes  his  defense  thus  strongly:  "as  a 
matter  of  fact  the  rabbis  of  the  old  thoroughly  orthodox 

1Frankel  answered  Maier  in  an  article  entitled  "Schreiben  an  den 
Herrn  Kirchenrath  Dr.  Maier  in  Stuttgart/'  Zeitschrift  fur  die 
religiosen  Interessen  des  Judenthums,  II  (1845),  161-82. 


THE    EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         225 

school  were  far  more  careful,  honest,  and  honorable  than 
those  of  the  chiaroscuro  type  of  to-day.  The  former  de- 
clared art  and  science,  in  short  all  culture  except  that  of  a 
purely  religious  character,  as  absolutely  incompatible  with 
Judaism,  and  characterized  every  Jew  who  read  a  German 
book  as  a  heretic  5xw  *n£*o  S/&J>13  ;  this  attitude  was  con- 
sistent and  intelligible;  the  latter  however  advise  that 
modern  schools  be  attended  by  Jews,  and  the  arts  and 
sciences  be  cultivated  by  them,  but  denounce  all  such  as 
advocate  a  reform  of  the  ritual  and  the  cult,  because  these 
do  not  harmonize  with  modern  culture— this  attitude  is 
inconsistent  and  unintelligible.  But  history  adjusts  every 
inconsistency,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  the  present  incon- 
sistency in  Judaism  will  be  adjusted,  even  though  dozens 
of  Frankels  strive  against  it  with  might  and  main.  As  for 
you,  my  friends  and  brothers,  who  are  not  concerned  for 
your  own  aggrandizement,  but  for  the  weal  of  our  co-relig- 
ionists :  not  for  the  realization  of  selfish  plans  and  opinions, 
but  for  the  preservation  of  our  religion :  be  you  not  misled 
by  appearances  like  this  which  I  have  just  discussed.  The 
struggle  of  light  with  darkness  is  still  on,  but  victory  must 
follow  as  surely  as  does  the  day  and  dawn." 

Much  as  some  other  writings  that  the  conference  called 
forth  deserve  detailed  mention,  notably  the  answer  of 
Samuel  Hirsch  to  Frankel,  mentioned  above,  and  the 
pamphlet  of  Gotthold  Salomon, 1  they  must  be  passed  by 
with  a  mere  reference  in  order  that  space  may  be  given  to 
the  most  famous  of  all  the  publications  resulting  from  the 
deliberations  and  recommendations  of  the  conference. 
The  protest  of  seventy-seven  orthodox  rabbis  of  Germany, 
France,  and  Hungary  aroused  as  great  commotion  at  the 
time  as  did  the  conference  itself.  The  protest  was  in 
the  form  of  an  address  to  the  faithful  in  Israel  ^1O«  'Dtfp 
5&O&J",  and  the  words  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  xxxiii.  6-7, 

1  Die  Rablinerversammlung  und  ihre  Tendenz.     Eine  Beleuchtung 
fur  Freunde  und  Feinde.     Hamburg,  1845. 
15 


226  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

were  placed  at  the  head  of  the  document  as  the  motto.  It 
was  in  the  main  a  fierce  denunciation  of  the  conference 
and  its  members.  Some  of  its  salient  sentences  read, 
"Judaism  is  slandered  by  men  who  call  themselves  its  pro- 
tectors and  its  teachers."  "No  authority  is  respected, 
not  even  that  of  the  two-thousand-year-old  Great  Synod, 
among  whose  members  even  the  last  of  the  prophets  were 
numbered.  The  barriers  of  truth  are  battered  down;  the 
Talmud  with  all  the  traditional  divine  law  contained  in  it 
is  vilified  in  the  most  unsparing  manner,  and  its  fall  is 
gloated  over."  The  protest  speaks  of  the  members  of  the 
conference  as  desiring  to  erect  in  the  place  of  the  hegemony 
of  the  Talmud  "the  throne  of  Karaism  or  possibly  the 
rule  of  the  idol  of  convenience  and  sensuality."  The  pro- 
test proper  is  worded  thus:  "After  carefully  conducted 
written  negotiation  and  conscientious  probing  of  all  the 
proceedings  of  said  conference,  we,  the  undersigned,  have 
united  to  inform  you,  the  faithful  in  Israel,  that  all  the 
resolutions  of  the  so-called  Brunswick  rabbinical  confer- 
ence—with the  sole  exception  of  the  one  that  defines  the 
political  attitude  of  the  Israelites  towards  the  state,  in 
which  is  to  be  included  also  the  resolution  declaring  for  the 
sacred  inviolability  of  the  oath— are  opposed  to  true  Juda- 
ism, and  are  therefore  false  and  condemnable  for  the  be- 
lieving Israelite;  that  a  destructive  spirit  of  revolution 
and  sectarianism  breathes  through  the  proceedings;  that 
the  work  which  has  been  projected  for  a  future  conference 
is  of  the  same  condemnable  character ;  and  that  we  regard 
it  therefore  as  the  duty  of  every  truly  believing  Israelite 
not  only  not  to  take  part  in  such  proceedings,  but  also  to 
oppose  such  novelty-seeking  efforts  by  every  legally  per- 
mitted means." 

The  signers  of  the  document  (which  reached  later  the 
number  of  one  hundred  and  sixteen)  acknowledge  the 
growing  indifference  in  Israel,  and  declare  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  religious  leaders  to  do  all  they  can  to  stem  it,  but 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         227 

they  denounce  the  method  of  the  reformers  as  false;  in- 
stead of  invoking  the  divine  aid  to  save  the  ship  of  Judaism 
which  is  tossing  about  in  agitated  waters,  they  think  to  en- 
sure its  safety  by  throwing  overboard  one  divine  law  after 
the  other.  "0  the  fatuity  of  those  blinded  leaders  in 
Israel!  .  .  .  Neither  we  nor  any  person  have  the  power 
to  abrogate  even  the  least  of  the  religious  laws."  They 
then  call  attention  to  such  incidents  in  the  past  as  the 
idolatry  of  the  people  during  the  first  commonwealth,  the 
apostasy  preceding  the  Maccabean  uprising,  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Sadducean  and  Karaite  sects;  all  these  have 
passed  away  with  the  exception  of  a  few  thousand  Karaites 
while  the  observers  of  the  Law  still  exist  and  flourish. 
"Therefore,  ye  faithful  in  Israel!"  the  protest  concludes, 
"do  not  permit  yourselves,  because  of  the  scarecrow  of 
religious  decay  which  has  been  set  up,  to  be  misled  to  sanc- 
tioning reforms  and  innovations  which  result  only  in  in- 
creasing this  decay.  Turn  hopefully  with  us  to  Him  who 
desires  the  well-being  of  all  his  children  on  earth,  praying 
that  He  may  heal  soon  the  sickness  of  our  age  which  is 
suffering  from  materialism,  and  that  He  may  bring  back 
to  the  true  faith  the  erring  in  Israel1  ....  Until  then 

1  What  this  true  faith  from  the  orthodox  standpoint  is  conceived  to 
be  was  stated  most  clearly  in  a  remarkable  manifesto  issued  shortly 
after  this,  viz.,  on  March  31,  1846,  by  S.  Godscheaux,  grand  rabbi  of 
Colmar,  and  L.  M.  Lambert,  grand  rabbi  of  Metz;  this  document  was 
as  follows:  "it  has  become  necessary  that  every  Israelite  be  in- 
formed fully  concerning  the  tactics  of  those  who  under  the  high- 
sounding  names  of  reformers,  and  progressivists,  preach  atheism  and 
irreligion,  and  who  under  the  hypocritical  pretence  of  making  our 
religion  more  imposing  and  beautiful,  really  desire  to  sacrifice  it  to 
the  advantages  and  indulgences  of  material  life.  Therefore  we 
address  ourselves  anew  to  you,  cherished  brethren  of  Israel,  and  give 
you  herewith  a  brief  resume  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Jewish  religion  as  they  are  designated  in  the  Talmud,  and  as  our 
fathers  have  observed  them: — 

(a)  The  divine  law  is  immutable  and  eternal  like  its  Author; 
neither  time  nor  conditions  can  change,  much  less  abrogate  it. 


228  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

let  us  guard  our  very  ancient  religious  fortress  faithfully, 
and  protect  it  against  those  who  approach  it  in  the  guise 
of  friends  in  order  to  undermine  its  foundations  undis- 
turbed. ' ' *  The  protest  was  signed  among  others  by  such 
paladins  of  orthodoxy  as  N.  M.  Adler  of  Hanover,  B.  Auer- 
bach  of  Darmstadt,  Jacob  Bamberger  of  Worms,  Seligman 
Bar  Bamberger  of  Wiirzburg,  Jacob  Aaron  Ettlinger  of 

(&)  The  oral  law  is  as  truly  the  word  of  God  as  the  written  law. 

(c)  All   institutions   and   regulations  which   were   introduced   into 
Judaism  with  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  law  are  as  unchangeable 
as  the  law  itself. 

(d)  No  assembly  and  be  it  of  all  the  rabbis,  yea  be  it  of  all  Israel 
in  conjunction  with  all  the  rabbis,  has  either  the  authority  or  the 
right  to  abrogate  or  to  change  the  least  portion  of  the  law,  whether 
oral  or  written,  or  the  introduced  institutions  or  regulations. 

These  are  the  principles  of  the  true  Israelitish  belief  in  which  our 
fathers  lived,  and  for  which  they  died;  every  reformatory  attempt  to 
change  these  constitutes  rebellion  against  the  religion  binding  upon 
all  the  children  of  Jacob,  and  leads  to  the  way  of  destruction." — 
A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X  (1846),  290-1. 

So  also  the  constitution  of  the  famous  orthodox  congregation  of 
Frankfort-on-the-Main,  presided  over  for  many  years  by  Samson 
Eaphael  Hirsch,  the  greatest  of  the  orthodox  leaders  of  Germany  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  defines  its  standpoint  as  follows:  "The  old 
Jewish  religious  legislation  which  forms  the  fundamental  statute  of 
every  Jewish  community  has  given  the  Israelitish  congregation  also 
the  fundamental  rules  for  its  religious  guidance,  and  nothing  could 
nor  can  obtain  validity  in  it  which  is  not  in  accord  with  this  religious 
legislation  as  it  has  been  handed  down  to  us  in  Thora,  Talmud,  and 
the  rabbinical  codes  of  the  Shulchan  Arulc." 

1  Other  protests  against  the  Brunswick  Conference  were  issued  by 
the  rabbinate  of  Krakau,  see  7.  N.  J.,  VI,  86;  by  Eabbi  Nathan 
Marcus  Adler  of  Hanover  (later  of  London),  and  Hirsch  Lehren  of 
Amsterdam,  ibid.,  30,  and  by  D.  Deutsch,  rabbi  in  Sohrau,  Upper 
Silesia  nS'DK  e;iDK  (Gathering  of  an  Assembly)  "oder  Protestation 
gegen  die  Eabbinerversammlung, ' '  Breslau,  1846.  This  was  a  pro- 
test against  both  the  Brunswick  and  Frankfort  conferences.  See 
also  "Kritische  Bemerkungen  zu  den  Protokollen  der  ersten  Eab- 
binerversammlung, "  Literaturblatt  des  Orient  1845,  nos.  48,  64, 
and  80. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          229 

Altona,  Samuel  Freund  of  Prague,  Samson  Raphael  Hirsch 
of  Emden,  E.  L.  Teweles  of  Prague,  G.  Tiktin  of  Breslau, 
and  S.  A.  Trier  of  Frankfort. 

This  protest  may  be  considered  an  official  document  of 
the  party  of  tradition.  ''Neither  we  nor  any  person  have 
the  power  to  abrogate  the  least  of  the  religious  laws;" 
this  sentence  sums  up  their  position.  In  their  eyes  the 
Brunswick  reformers  were  traitors  and  worse  to  the  cause 
of  Judaism.  Their  cry  was  the  same  as  that  of  the  rabbis 
who  over  half  a  century  previously  had  denounced  Men- 
delssohn 's  German  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
Wessely's  plea  for  secular  education,  and  later  the  Ham- 
burg Prayer-Book  and  Geiger's  attitude.  For  them  Juda- 
ism was  a  closed  chapter ;  at  any  rate  they  were  consistent ; 
they  considered  modern  influences  of  whatever  kind  as 
inimical  to  Judaism;  their  opposition  to  the  Brunswick 
conference  was  justified  from  their  standpoint,  and  one  can 
understand  and  even  sympathize  with  this  opposition  if 
that  standpoint  is  borne  in  mind.  But  they  were  enlisted 
in  a  lost  cause,  the  day  of  rabbinism  and  Shulchan-AruJcism 
was  past  for  the  Jew  living  in  modern  surroundings. 
Judaism  was  demanding  a  new  reading,  and  even  though 
the  Brunswick  conferees  did  not  render  that  new  reading 
completely,  still  were  they  nearer  the  true  understanding 
of  the  underlying  principles  of  the  faith  than  were  their 
bitter  though  sincere  opponents;  the  Brunswick  conferees 
lived  in  the  present,  and  appreciated  the  changes  that  had 
come  upon  Jewry,  the  signers  of  the  protest  lived  in  the 
past  and  could  not,  I  will  not  say  would  not,  see  those 
changes. 

The  protest  called  forth  many  counter-replies;  from 
Mannheim,1  Giessen, 2  Karlsruhe,3  Worms,4  Heidelberg, 
and  other  communities  came  addresses  signed  by  many 
names  upholding  the  conference,  and  denouncing  the  at- 

1/.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  128. 

2  Ibid.,  215.  'Ibid.,  222.  *  Ibid.,  159. 


230  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

titude  of  the  seventy-seven;  a  brief  extract  from  one  of 
these  addresses  will  serve  to  indicate  the  spirit  that  per- 
vaded all  of  them : ''  *  In  the  present  critical  phase  of  Juda- 
ism we  await  only  beneficial  results  from  the  efforts  of  the 
rabbinical  conference;  its  published  proceedings  enlist  our 
full  sympathy,  and  we  look  forward  with  the  greatest  con- 
fidence to  its  future  transactions  which  we  expect  will  free 
our  sublime  religion  from  the  excrescences  of  past  ages,  and 
set  forth  its  truths  in  a  manner  suited  to  the  time  wherein 
we  are  now  living. ' ' 1 

Thus  the  Brunswick  conference,  as  could  not  fail  to  be 
the  case,  was  condemned  bitterly  in  some  quarters  and  com- 
mended strongly  in  others ;  the  published  proceedings  offer 
but  a  faint  reflex  of  the  spirit  which  animated  the  confer- 
ence; many  who  attended  did  so  at  great  sacrifices,  being 
impelled  by  the  longing  to  contribute  towards  a  solution  of 
the  difficulties  that  were  besetting  Judaism.  This  confer- 
ence did  pioneer  work;  it  grappled  with  vital  problems; 
the  members  were  sincere  in  their  presentation  and  dis- 
cussion of  these  problems;  the  solution  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected in  a  week,  many  of  the  problems  there  touched  upon 
have  not  been  settled  to  this  day ;  the  question  of  Hebrew 
in  the  service,  and  the  Sabbath  question,  are  still  the  fruit- 
ful subjects  of  debate.  In  truth,  the  members  of  this  con- 
ference could  do  no  more  than  indicate  a  program  for 
future  conferences,  and  this  they  did  by  appointing  com- 
missions to  report  on  vital  subjects  at  coming  meetings. 

1From  an  address  signed  by  sixty  Jews  of  Worms,  /.  N.  J., 
VI,  159.  Mention  must  be  made  also  of  the  pamphlet  issued 
by  Dr.  A.  Adler,  entitled  "Die  sieben  und  seibzig  sogenannten 
Eabbiner  und  die  Kabbinerversammlung "  Mannheim,  1845;  this 
in  its  turn  called  forth  a  defense  of  the  signers  of  the  protest 

from    K m    (supposedly    E.    Kirchheim)    in    the    form    of 

an  open  letter,  entitled  "Offener  Brief  an  A.  Adler,  Mitglied  der 
Braunschweiger  Babbinerversammlung  als  Antwort  auf  sein  Send- 
schreiben  an  die  77  sogenannten  Eabbiner  u.  s.  w. "  Bockenheim, 
1845. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          231 

One  of  two  courses  was  open  to  them,  either  the  theoretical 
or  the  practical;  had  the  conference  resolved  itself  into  a 
committee  of  the  whole  to  consider  and  perfect  plans  for 
the  founding  and  maintenance  of  practical  institutions 
like  a  rabbinical  seminary,  a  publication  society  and  the 
like,  as  Philippson  and  also  Geiger  desired,  it  would  have 
aroused  less  opposition  and  have  set  in  motion  useful  and 
needed  agencies.  But  under  the  circumstances  this  could 
have  been  but  one  phase  of  its  activity  at  best.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how,  in  that  period  of  storm  and  stress,  any 
gathering  of  rabbis  could  have  avoided  the  consideration  of 
those  burning  questions  in  Jewish  life  that  the  Brunswick 
conference  discussed ;  for  even  though  the  discussions  were 
theoretical  and  academic  they  had  also  a  distinct  practical 
bearing.  Principle  is  all  important;  the  Jewish  commu- 
nities required  a  clear  understanding  of  the  principles  of 
Judaism  as  they  found  expression  in  the  liturgy  and  the 
public  institutions  of  the  faith,  and  who  was  to  discuss  and 
determine  upon  these  principles  if  not  the  religious  leaders  ? 
This  the  rabbis  assembled  at  Brunswisk  did,  and  for  that 
reason  this  conference  is  so  important  an  incident  in  the 
history  of  the  reform  movement. 1 

(&)  The  Frankfort  Conference 

The  second  meeting  of  the  ' '  Conference  of  the  Eabbis  of 
Germany ' ' 2  took  place  at  Frankf  ort-on-the-Main  July  15- 
28,  1845 ;  those  present  were  A.  Adler,  of  Worms ;  S.  Adler, 
of  Alzey;  J.  Auerbach,  of  Frankfort;  Ben  Israel,  of  Cob- 
lentz;  David  Einhorn,  of  Birkenfeld;  S.  Formstecher,  of 
Offenbach;  Z.  Frankel,  of  Dresden;  A.  Geiger,  of  Breslau;3 

1  Holdheim,  G.  J.  K.  G.  B.,  25. 

a  Die  Versammlung  der  Edbbiner  Deutschlands.  This  was  the 
official  name  adopted  at  Brunswick;  see  ProtoTcolle,  87.  This  name 
was  changed  at  Frankfort  to  Die  Versammlung  deutscher  Babbiner 
(Conference  of  German  Rabbis). 

'Geiger  wrote  a  series  of  articles  which  appeared  just  before  the 
convening  of  the  conference  in  which  he  set  forth  what  he  thought 


232  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

J.  Gosen,  of  Marburg;  Giildenstein,  of  Buch.au;  S.  Herx- 
heimer,  of  Bernburg;  L.  Herzfeld,  of  Brunswick;  M.  Hess, 
of  Stadt-Lengsf eld ;  S.  Holdheim,  of  Schwerin;  S.  Hirsch, 
of  Luxembourg;  Hoffman,  of  Waldorf;  J.  Jolowicz,  of 
Kulm ;  I.  M.  Jost,  of  Frankfort ;  J.  Kahn,  of  Trier ;  J.  Maier, 
of  Stuttgart;  L.  Philippson,  of  Magdeburg;  M.  Reiss,  of 
Altbreisach;  G.  Salomon,  of  Hamburg;  L.  Schott,  of 
Randegg;  L.  Sobernheim,  of  Bingen;  L.  Stein,  of  Frank- 
fort; L.  Siisskind,  of  Wiesbaden;  A.  Treuenfels,  of  Weil- 
burg;  H.  Wagner,  of  Mannheim;  and  B.  Wechsler,  of 
Oldenburg.  L.  Stein,  the  recently  appointed  rabbi  of  the 
Frankfort  congregation  was  elected  president;  A.  Geiger, 
vice-President,  and  I.  M.  Jost  and  S.  Hirsch  secretaries. 

The  Frankfort  Conference  is  notable  because  of  the  full 
and  thorough  discussion  that  the  report  of  the  Commission 
on  Liturgy  received  at  the  hands  of  the  rabbis  present. 
This  commission  appointed  at  Brunswick  reported  through 
its  chairman,  J.  Maier,  of  Stuttgart.  The  discussion  of  this 
report  occupied  the  greater  portion  of  the  session.  For  nine 
days  (July  15-24)  the  members  of  the  conference  debated 
the  various  recommendations  of  the  report;  the  discussion 
was  conducted  on  a  very  lofty  and  scholarly  plane,  and  in 
the  course  thereof  many  striking  things  were  said.  Al- 
though most  of  the  rabbis  present  leaned  decidedly  towards 
reform,  still  the  conservative  side  was  represented,  and,  as 
will  be  seen,  the  recommendations  were  by  no  means  radical 
in  character,  although  of  a  reforming  tendency  throughout. 
The  men  gathered  at  Frankfort  were  for  the  most  part 
open-minded  and  clear-sighted;  they  combined  a  thorough 

the  conference  should  stand  for  and  aim  to  accomplish;  see  "Einige 
Ansichten  iiber  die  nachste  Babbinerversammlung, "  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX, 
322  ff.,  340  ff.,  386  ff.,  398  ff.  The  closing  words  of  these  articles 
express  clearly  the  object  of  the  conferences:  "the  only  purpose  that 
should  be  kept  in  mind  is  to  strengthen  the  religious  spirit  of  the 
present  generation;  all  out-grown  forms  that  have  ceased  to  further 
the  religious  sentiment  must  either  be  abrogated  or  changed  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  new  life  that  the  Jewish  people  are  living  now." 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         233 

knowledge  of  Hebrew  lore  with  a  keen  appreciation  of  the 
religious  conditions  in  the  Jewish  communities,  and  fear- 
lessly yet  reverentially  gave  themselves  to  the  task  of  cast- 
ing their  Jewish  inheritance  into  a  modern  mold. *  The 
discussions  on  the  liturgy  are  indicative  of  the  spirit  that 
permeated  the  conference  and  must  therefore  be  given  at 
some  length,  notably  as  the  points  debated  are  of  signifi- 
cance still  to-day,  sixty  years  later. 

The  Hebrew  Language  in  the  Service 

The  commission  reported,  in  answer  to  the  question 
whether  and  in  how  far  the  Hebrew  language  was  necessary 
for  the  public  religious  services  and  if  not  necessary 
whether  its  retention  was  advisable  for  the  present, 2 
that  there  is  no  objective  necessity  for  Hebrew  throughout 
the  service,  and  that  not  even  Talmudic  authority  can  be 
cited  for  this,  barring  few  exceptions.  But  since  a  sub- 
jective necessity  for  the  Hebrew  possibly  exists  among  a 
great  portion  of  German  Jewry  at  present,  the  commission 
deems  it  advisable  to  retain  the  Hebrew  in  the  typical  parts 
of  the  liturgy,  viz. :  ITU  with  its  responses,  the  yDfc?  riBHS, 
the  first  and  last  three  benedictions  of  the  n^BD  and  the 
minn  n«np  ;  the  remainder  of  the  service  to  be  in  German.3 

1For  a  fine  statement  of  why  the  reform  movement  could  be  led 
successfully  by  men  of  this  type  only,  cf.  Holdheim,  G.  J.  S.  G.  B., 
40.  Berlin,  1857. 

-ProtoTcolle  und  ATctenstucke  der  zweiten  Rdbbinerversammlung 
abgehalten  in  Frankfurt  am  Main,  vom  15ten  bis  zum,  28ten  Juli, 
1845,  p.  18.  Frankfurt  am  Main,  1845. 

8  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  first  prayer-book  that  was  con- 
structed on  the  lines  suggested  in  this  report  was  Dr.  David  Ein- 
horn's;  the  Hebrew  portions  in  that  prayer-book  are  the  very  ones 
suggested  here.  In  the  latest  prayer-book  prepared  by  adherents 
of  the  reform  movement,  which  is  also  the  first  to  be  issued  by  a  body 
of  rabbis  and  not  by  an  individual,  viz.,  The  Union  Prayer-Book,  pub- 
lished by  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  the  same 
Hebrew  scheme  is  followed,  with  the  exception  that  the  last  three 
benedictions  of  the  Shemone  Esreh  are  also  in  English. 


234  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Zacharias  Frankel,  who  had  criticized  the  Brunswick 
Conference  so  caustically, J  and  who  had  appeared  at  this 
conference  with  the  purpose  of  directing  the  discussions 
into  a  more  conservative  channel,  took  occasion  at  the  very 
outset  of  the  meeting  to  define  his  religious  standpoint  and 
his  attitude  towards  reform.  He  used  here  the  famous 
phrase  "positive  historical  Judaism"  as  expressive  of  his 
position.  He  discussed  not  so  much  the  point  at  issue, 
viz.,  Hebrew  in  the  service,  as  the  whole  question  of  reform. 
It  is  necessary,  first  of  all,  said  he,  to  lay  down  the  prin- 
ciples that  guide  us.  "Lack  of  principle  (Prinzipienlosig- 
keit)  is  the  greatest  enemy  of  the  faith  and  must  be  com- 
bated from  all  sides."  He  declared  his  platform  to  be 
positive  historical  Judaism.  True,  we  cannot  return  to  the 
letter  of  the  Bible  and  take  this  as  our  guide,  but  shall  we 
be  guided,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  spirit  of  the  age  ?  The 
spirit  of  the  age  is  as  changeable  as  time  itself.  Further, 
it  is  cold;  it  may  appear  reasonable,  but  it  will  never  be 
able  to  satisfy  the  heart,  to  comfort,  soothe  and  edify; 
Judaism,  however,  is  always  inspiring  and  edifying.  The 
reform  of  Judaism  is  not  a  reform  of  the  faith,  but  of  legal 
acts.  These  still  exercise  a  living  and  definite  influence 
on  the  people.  It  should  not  be  our  purpose  to  weaken, 
but  to  strengthen,  this  influence.  We  should  not  pay  any 
heed  to  individuals  who  do  not  carry  out  the  customs ;  we 
are  not  a  party,  but  must  have  a  care  for  the  whole  com- 
munity. The  need  of  the  hour  is  to  prevent  each  and 
every  division  in  Israel;  not  to  call  new  parties  into  ex- 
istence, but  to  reconcile  with  one  another  those  already  ex- 
isting. Another  principle  must  guide  us,  viz.,  the  science 
of  Judaism;  this  must  be  the  foundation  whereon  every 
reform  must  build.  There  are  great  scholars  who  are  not 
rabbis  in  active  service,  and  who  are  therefore  excluded 
from  our  meetings;  they  should  have  a  voice  in  such  mat- 
ters as  require  a  scientific  exposition  of  the  thought  and 

1  Supra,  221. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          235 

development  of  Judaism;  it  would  be  well,  therefore,  to 
secure  their  opinions,  which  could  be  done  if  all  impor- 
tant resolutions  were  printed  and  spread  abroad  before  a 
vote  is  taken  here  upon  them. 1  He  concluded  by  stating 
that  he  considered  the  rabbinical  conference  an  excellent 
institution,  but  that  he  could  sanction  its  gatherings  only  if 
they  would  have  in  mind  constantly  the  entire  body  of 
positive  Judaism.  He  would  therefore  implore  and  adjure 
the  assembly  to  declare  its  principles  first  of  all,  and  to 
permit  no  discussion  whose  only  purpose  was  the  expres- 
sion of  private  opinions  and  views. 

The  President  replied  to  Frankel,  and  declared  that  they 
were  quite  at  one  in  their  views. 

After  this  introductory  digression,  the  debate  on  the  sub- 
ject in  hand  proceeded,  the  main  features  of  which  are 
reproduced  here.  Frankel  opened  the  discussion  proper 
by  saying  that  the  Hebrew  language  is  interwoven  with 
the  very  life  of  Judaism,  and  that  for  him  it  is  the  holy 
language.  The  Hebrew  name  of  God,  Adonai,  means  much 
more  to  the  Jew  than  the  German  expression  Gott.  The 
retention  of  the  Hebrew  is  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  a  knowledge  of  Holy  Writ.  Without  this  all  true  under- 
standing of  the  Bible  would  be  entirely  neglected  among 
the  Jews. 

Geiger  asserted  that  all  authorities  agree  that  prayer 
may  be  spoken  in  any  language.  The  question  whether 
Hebrew  is  objectively  necessary  in  prayer  must  be  under- 
stood as  meaning  whether  it  is  legally  necessary.  At  all 
events,  there  is  no  prohibition  anywhere  to  use  other 
languages.  This  suffices. 2 

1  After     his     break     with     the     Rabbinical     Conference     Frankel 
attempted  to  form  a  Conference  of  Theologians  (Theologenversamm- 
lung)    in  accordance  with  these  remarks;    this   conference   of   theo- 
logians was  caUed  for  the  fall  of  1846  (October  21),  but  the  meeting 
never  took  place. 

2  For  Geiger 's  views  on  this  subject  see  also   "Der   Hamburger 
Tempelstreit"  in  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  151,  153,  156;  "Noth- 


236  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Salomon  claimed  that  not  one  of  the  recognized  legal 
codes  obliges  us  to  pray  in  Hebrew.  Mishnah  and  Talmud 
say  distinctly  p^  5>33  VD^  and  pt?5  Son  n^sn  (the  sh 'ma 
and  the  eighteen  benedictions  may  be  spoken  in  any  lan- 
guage) ;  so  also  we  read  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  fc^Wlftf  ^ 
HVT  1B>K  pB^  ^33  (Or.  Oft.  Hit.  Tef.  101.4),  "Man  can  pray 
in  any  language  that  he  desires,"  and  in  the  Book  of  the 
Pious  (  D^TDn  1DD,  par.  588  and  785)  it  is  said  expressly 
that  the  chief  prayers  should  be  uttered  in  the  language 
which  is  understood  and  that  it  is  better  "not  to  pray  at 
all  than  to  pray  in  a  language  that  one  does  not  under- 
stand." Hence  there  is  no  religious  obligation  to  pray  in 
Hebrew. * 

A.  Adler  averred  that  the  designation  of  Hebrew  as  the 
holy  tongue  is  no  evidence  for  the  necessity  of  its  use  as 
the  language  of  the  divine  service ;  this  name  indicates  only 
that  it  is  the  language  of  sacred  Scripture  whose  sanctity 
depends  not  on  the  verbal  expression,  but  on  the  thought 
expressed.  He  objected  to  the  distinction  made  by  the 
commission  as  between  the  objective  and  the  subjective 
necessity  for  the  use  of  Hebrew  in  the  service ;  this  was  of 
no  importance.  The  vital  question  was  whether  the  liturgy 
should  be  fixed  for  present  needs  or  for  always. 

Reiss  dissented  from  report  by  claiming  that  the  pre- 
cept 7)13133  tr»3n  iy3Bt?  yntDOD  ni:^  TIDK  (it  is  forbidden 
to  change  the  form  into  which  the  wise  men  have  cast  the 
benedictions),2  involves  a  prohibition  to  eliminate  Hebrew 
and  particularly  the  forms  of  the  benedictions  which  can 
be  reproduced  exactly  in  no  other  language.  Further,  a 
distinction  must  be  made  between  the  private  prayer  of 

wendigkeit  und  Maass  einer  Reform  des  jiidischen  Gottesdienstes, ' ' 
in  ibid.,  212-214;  also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  386,  and  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  VI,  5-8. 

1  Salomon  had  expressed  himself  similarly  in  his  pamphlet,  Das 
neue  Gebeibuch  und  seine  V erketzerung ,  20  ff.  Hamburg,  1842. 

2Maimonides,  Hil.  BeraJcot,  I,  5;  cf.  Talmud  Jer.  Bercikot,  V,  9; 
VI,  10,  etc. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         237 

an  individual  and  the  public  service  in  the  synagogue— only 
in  the  former  case  is  German  permissible  as  the  language 
of  prayer. 

Einhorn  stated  unequivocally  that  no  possible  doubt  can 
be  entertained  as  to  the  legal  permissibility  of  any  language 
for  prayer.  "Nay,  I  go  further,  and  state  that  the  intro- 
duction of  the  vernacular  into  the  service  is  necessary. 
Hebrew  is  the  language  of  the  study  of  the  Law,  but  it 
is  not  the  organ  wherewith  to  express  the  feelings  of  the 
people.  Aforetimes  prayer  was  only  a  cry  of  pain;  a 
scarcely  intelligible  expression  sufficed  for  this ;  but  now 
people  need  a  prayer  that  shall  express  thoughts,  feelings 
and  sentiments;  this  is  possible  only  through  the  mother 
tongue. ' ' 

Samuel  Adler  agreed  that  the  Maimonidean  precept 
quoted  by  Keiss  is  of  weight.  But  on  what  does  this  pro- 
nouncement rest  ?  There  is  no  reason  given  for  it  because  it 
is  axiomatic.  The  wise  men  in  Israel  worked  for  the  people ; 
set  prayers  were  necessary  in  order  that  prayer  might  not 
become  merely  a  matter  of  caprice;  the  people,  being  in- 
capable of  giving  a  worthy  form  of  expression  to  prayer,  re- 
quire that  prayer  be  cast  into  set  formulae.  Hence  that 
precept  of  Maimonides  was  meant  for  the  people  only,  not 
for  the  teachers.  It  is  reported  of  Jizchaq  Saggi  Nahor 
that  he  was  dissatisfied  with  many  of  the  benedictions; 
thus  for  example  he  substituted  D^fcnv  rmm  Ttt  KDD  pID 
(who  established  the  throne  of  David  and  buildeth 
Jerusalem)  for  D^IV  run  (who  buildeth  Jerusalem).  All 
chakamhn  (wise  men,  teachers)  had  the  same  privilege 
and  the  rabbis  of  the  present  day  are  subject  to  the  same 
sacred  duty  of  providing  for  the  people  according  to  the 
needs  of  the  present. 

Stein  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  prayers  like  Tequm 
Purqan  and  Qaddish  were  spoken  in  Aramaic  and  not  in 
Hebrew,  because  the  former  was  the  popular  tongue  at  the 
time  they  were  introduced  into  the  service. 


238  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Upon  the  taking  of  the  vote  on  the  question  as  to  whether 
it  is  objectively  legally  necessary  (objektiv  gesetzlich 
nothwendig)  to  retain  the  Hebrew  as  the  language  of  the 
service,  all  voted  in  the  negative  except  four,  who  refrained 
from  voting,  viz.,  Frankel,  Formstecher,  Schott  and  Philipp- 
son.  On  the  following  day  three  of  these  declared  their 
position  definitely;  Frankel  voted  with  the  majority,  and 
stated  that  there  was  no  law  demanding  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew,  except  in  a  few  instances,  such  as  the  priestly 
benediction ;  Schott,  referring  to  the  decision  of  Maimonides 
that  had  been  quoted  during  the  discussion,  voted  that 
Hebrew  was  legally  necessary ;  Philippson  declared  that  he 
withdrew  his  objection,  which  referred  only  to  the  form  in 
which  the  question  was  put,  and  voted  also  with  those  who 
answered  the  question  in  the  negative ;  hence,  all  present, 
with  the  exception  of  Schott  and  Formstecher,  placed 
themselves  on  record  to  the  effect  that  objectively  con- 
sidered it  was  not  legally  necessary  to  retain  Hebrew  as 
the  language  of  the  service. 

But  this  was  only  the  first  portion  of  the  question  under 
debate ;  the  conference  proceeded  to  discuss  the  latter  half, 
viz.,  "Is  the  retention  of  the  Hebrew  in  the  public  service 
objectively  necessary  on  other  than  legal  grounds?" 

Hirsch  opened  the  discussion  by  stating  that  he  con- 
sidered the  exclusion  of  Hebrew  from  the  synagogue  un- 
warranted. True,  Hebrew  had  become  unfamiliar  to  the 
people,  and  this  was  one  of  those  instances  of  a  collision 
between  life  and  profession  the  reconciling  of  which  was 
their  especial  task.  They  should  aim  to  solve  the  question 
as  to  how  Hebrew  could  be  taught  in  the  schools  without 
encroaching  too  much  upon  the  time  necessary  for  proper 
instruction  in  other  branches.  The  chief  reason  why 
Hebrew  should  not  be  excluded  from  the  service  was  that  in 
such  case  the  gulf  between  the  theologians  who  alone  would 
understand  it  and  the  non-theologians  would  become  wider 
and  wider,  and  as  a  result  the  distinction  between  clergy 
and  laity,  which  is  foreign  to  Judaism,  would  creep  in. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846         239 

Holdheim  claimed  that  a  weakening  of  the  religious  spirit 
would  not  result  from  the  removal  of  Hebrew  from  the 
synagogue,  for  this  does  not  depend  on  any  language,  but 
on  its  inherent  strength.  The  use  of  the  vernacular  in  the 
service  wherever  it  was  found  necessary  would  contribute 
very  much  towards  clarifying  the  religious  conceptions, 
and  far  from  harming  Judaism,  would  make  for  a  strength- 
ening of  the  religious  consciousness  among  the  Jews  and 
secure  recognition  of  the  mission  of  the  religion  in  the  out- 
side world. * 

Herzfeld  gave  voice  to  the  vague  sentimentalism  of  the 
romanticist  when  he  claimed  that  the  Hebrew  should  be 
retained  because  there  was  something  mystical  in  it ;  "  even 
though  some  things  be  not  clearly  understood,  this  does  no 
harm." 

Geiger  held  that  it  was  desirable  that  the  service  be  con- 
ducted in  the  mother  tongue,  because  this  is  the  language 
of  the  heart  (Gemuth).  "All  our  deepest  feelings  and 
sentiments,  all  our  highest  thoughts,  receive  their  expres- 
sion through  it."  He  felt  constrained  to  confess  that  a 
German  prayer  aroused  in  him  deeper  devotion  than  did 
a  Hebrew  prayer,  even  though  Hebrew  was  his  second 
mother  tongue;  nay,  he  might  say  his  first,  since  he  had 
learned  it  first.  Hebrew  lives  no  longer  among  the  peo- 
ple; it  is  not  difficult  to  perceive  that  even  the  reading 
from  the  Law  wearies  the  greater  portion  of  the  congrega- 
tion. It  had  been  claimed,  continued  he,  that  if  the 
Hebrew  were  to  be  eliminated  from  the  service  the  very 
foundations  of  Judaism  would  be  shattered;  he,  for  his 
part,  considered  it  a  most  serious  reflection  on  Judaism  if 
it  be  held  that  it  required  the  prop  of  a  language  to  en- 
dure. Further,  if  the  Hebrew  is  looked  upon  as  an  essen- 

1  Holdheim  expressed  himself  similarly  in  his  response  in  the 
Geiger-Tiktin  controversy;  see  Babbinische  Gutachten  uber  die 
VertraglicJikeit  der  freien  Forschung  mit  dem  Babbineramte,  78-9; 
also  G.  J.  B.  G.  B.,  16,  196-7. 


240  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

tial  in  Judaism,  this  would  stamp  the  religion  as  a  national 
religion,  since  a  peculiar  language  is  the  mark  of  an  isolated 
national  existence ; 1  and  certainly  no  one  present  would 
assert  that  Judaism  is  necessarily  dependent  upon  a 
separate  nationality. 1 

Frankel  contended  that  religion  as  something  abstract 
required  outer  symbols  which  remind  us  of  God.  This 
was  the  purpose  of  such  commands  as  enjoined  the  use  of 
p^Bfi,  ntltD,  etc.,  etc. ;  this  also  is  the  purpose  of  Hebrew 
as  the  language  of  prayer.  So  much  that  is  character- 
istic of  Judaism  has  been  surrendered  already  that  it  is 
time  to  call  a  halt.  True,  a  portion  of  the  service  should 
be  in  German,  but  the  Hebrew  must  be  the  preponderating 
element.  The  ancient  teachers  who  had  permitted  the  use 
of  other  languages  in  prayer  had  in  mind  only  the  weak, 
who  would  not  have  found  solace  in  a  non-Hebrew  prayer 
without  such  permission.  These  teachers  never  thought  of 
eliminating  Hebrew  from  the  service. 

Maier  challenged  the  claim  that  the  Hebrew  was  the 
Jews '  mother  tongue ;  this  has  not  been  the  case  for  centu- 
ries ;  it  may  edify  some  few,  but  the  congregation  does  not 
entertain  such  a  sentiment.  This  was  recognized  afore- 
times  so  clearly  that  special  books  of  devotion  for  women 
(nijnn)  were  composed  in  German;  these  aroused  the  women 
to  greater  devotion  than  did  Hebrew  the  men.  The  only 
point  that  appears  worthy  of  notice  is  the  national  signifi- 
cance of  the  language  as  a  sign  of  the  common  bond  among 
Jews ;  but  a  minimum  of  Hebrew  is  sufficient  for  this,  e.  g., 

1  In  these  days  of  Zionistic  agitation  this  contention  of  Geiger  is 
of  especial  interest ;  a  similar  view  in  regard  to  the  Hebrew  has  been 
given  expression  to  recently  by  Dr.  Coblentz,  rabbi  in  Bielefeld,  in  an 
article  entitled  "Zur  Bekampfung  des  unbewusst  Nationalen  im 
Gef iihlsleben  der  deutchen  Juden, ' '  Popular-wissenschaftliche  Mo- 
natsbldter  zur  Belerung  uber  das  Judenthum  fur  Gebildete  aller 
Konfessionen,  XXV,  57-63,  Frankfurt  am  Main,  1905;  see  also  Die 
Juden  der  Gcgenwart,  137,  267.  Berlin,  1904. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846         241 


the  retention  of  yot?  and  n  PHP,  the  priestly  blessing  and  the 
reading  from  the  Torah. 

Philippson  urged  that  all  extremes  be  avoided;  it  is 
apparent  from  what  has  been  said  that  no  one  desires  to 
eliminate  the  Hebrew  altogether,  and  that  no  one,  on  the 
other  hand,  objects  to  the  introduction  of  German;  it  is 
only  a  question  of  how  much.  The  German  and  Hebrew 
elements  must  be  combined  organically.  The  Hebrew  is 
indispensable  as  the  point  of  union  among  Jews.  German 
Jews  are  German;  they  think  and  feel  as  Germans  and 
desire  to  live  and  be  active  patriotically.  But  Judaism  is 
not  German,  it  is  universal;  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  is 
not  the  dispersion  of  Judaism.  The  confession  of  Juda- 
ism represents  this  in  content,  the  Hebrew  language  in 
form.  x 

Abraham  Adler  held  that  they  must  bear  in  mind  but 
one  object,  viz.,  the  search  for  truth;  all  sentimentalism  is 
to  be  avoided.  It  may  pain  us  to  relinquish  some  things, 
and  yet  it  may  have  to  be  done  if  necessity  demands.  It 
has  been  claimed  that  Hebrew  is  sacred;  not  at  all;  the 
language  which  expresses  sacred  things  is  sacred  ;  if  I  speak 
truth  in  German,  then  the  German  word  is  sacred  ;  if  I  lie 
in  Hebrew,  then  the  Hebrew  word  is  unholy.  Not  the  let- 
ter nor  the  sound  makes  the  Bible  holy,  but  the  content. 
It  is  claimed,  further,  that  the  Bible  will  lose  its  influence 
if  we  dispense  with  Hebrew  as  the  language  of  prayer. 
Not  at  all.  Philo  has  been  cited  as  the  horrible  example 
of  the  effect  of  the  ignorance  of  Hebrew  (in  one  place  he 
mistranslates  a  Hebrew  phrase,  rendering  miB  m^n  "npm 
"thou  shalt  be  supported"  instead  of  "thou  shalt  be 
buried  in  a  good  old  age").  Even  though  he  knew  the 
Bible  from  a  Greek  translation  only,  his  works  are  more 
truly  religious  than  many  passages  in  the  Talmud.  .  .  . 
The  eternal  creations  of  the  mind  preserve  a  language; 

1  Philippson    elaborated  his   views   on   the   subject   in   a   series   of 
leading  articles  in  his  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII,  nos.  33,  43,  45,  and  52. 
16 


242  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

sacred  Scripture  is  immortal  through  itself  and  requires 
no  props.  Again,  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  Hebrew  sup- 
plies the  mystical  element  to  the  service  which  is  a  neces- 
sity ;  I  grant  that  there  is  truth  in  genuine  mysticism,  which 
is  frequently  the  subtlest  comprehension  of  the  truth;  but 
the  unintelligible  is  not  mysticism,  and  truth  is  not  re- 
vealed in  the  irrational. 1 

Auerbach  injected  a  new  element  into  the  discussion; 
much  has  been  said  on  the  score  of  sentiment  as  an  argu- 
ment for  retaining  the  Hebrew,  he  remarked ;  but  sentiment 
is  an  unsafe  guide  unless  linked  with  principle.  The  chief 
factor  in  the  pending  discussion  has  not  been  mentioned, 
viz.,  the  historical.  The  most  important  issue  of  the  day 
in  Judaism  is  involved  here,  i.  e.,  the  relation  of  the  national 
to  the  religious  element.  If  these  are  to  be  separated,  no 
one  is  justified  in  accusing  us  of  surrendering  our  national 
position  for  the  sake  of  civic  advantages  in  the  countries 
wherein  we  are  living.  Whoever  would  charge  us  with  this 
would  misunderstand  the  issue  altogether ;  the  issue  is  not 
what  we  wish  to  do  to  solve  our  mission,  but  what  we  must 
do.  History  has  decided.  Centuries  lie  between  the 
national  and  the  purely  religious.  Yet,  despite  this,  the 
attachment  to  the  Hebrew  is  not  mere  sentimentalism. 
The  national  was  not  really  divorced  from  the  religious  in 
Judaism,  but  the  latter  is  really  a  development  out  of  the 
former;  the  purely  religious  element  is  the  flower  of  Jew- 
ish nationalism.  We  must  hold  fast  the  thread  of  this 
development  if  we  would  not  surrender  the  principle  of 
Judaism.  Judaism  is  essentially  history;  the  history  of 
Judaism  is  at  the  same  time  religion.  The  Book  of  Books 

1  Abraham  Adler,  the  rabbi  of  Worms,  was  one  of  the  keenest 
thinkers  among  the  early  reformers.  He  was  a  brother  of  Samuel 
Adler,  rabbi  of  Alzey,  later  rabbi  of  Temple  Emanuel,  New  York. 
With  H.  Wagner  of  Mannheim,  Abraham  Adler  undertook,  in  1846, 
the  editing  of  a  periodical  in  the  interest  of  the  rabbinical  confer- 
ences entitled  Die  Reform  des  Judenthums.  But  one  volume  of  this 
periodical  appeared. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846  243 

holds  the  balance  between  the  national  and  the  religious 
elements.  The  chief  significance  of  this  for  us  lies  in  the 
fact  that  Israel,  whose  name  is  found  on  every  page  of  the 
Bible,  still  exists.  Judaism  is  not  merely  a  religious  con- 
fession; it  differs  from  other  religions  in  the  relation  of 
Israel  to  the  holy  books.  Therefore  we  must  continue  to 
foster  an  intimate  knowledge  of  Sacred  Scripture  and  that, 
too,  through  the  medium  of  the  original  tongue,  whose 
higher  significance  for  us  must  be  acknowledged  also  in  our 
time  and  the  study  of  which  must  be  encouraged  and 
furthered  in  our  schools.  As  for  Hebrew  in  the  service, 
we  must  bear  in  mind  always  that  we  should  have  in  the 
service  a  fixed  and  a  variable  portion;  the  Hebrew  por- 
tion is  the  fixed  element ;  this  fixed  part  has  not  the  devo- 
tional purpose  in  view,  but  forms  the  background  for  the 
service. 

Einhorn  began  by  confessing  that  he  was  not  learned 
enough  to  surrender  healthy  common  sense.  The  prime 
consideration  is  that  the  service  should  be  understood,  and 
therefore  the  mother  tongue  is  the  only  admissible  lan- 
guage. Even  though  the  theologians  were  the  only  ones 
to  possess  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  this  would  not  constitute 
them  into  a  hierarchy,  as  had  been  argued.  A  hierarchy  is 
founded  upon  privileges,  not  upon  learning.  Sentiment 
is  praiseworthy,  but  not  that  sickly  sentimentalism  which 
lames— nay,  kills— all  spiritual  life.  We  cannot  strike 
the  rock  of  a  dead  language  and  expect  the  living  waters 
which  will  quench  the  thirst  of  the  people  to  issue  from  it. 

Herxheimer  asserted  it  to  be  nonsense  to  address  God  in 
a  language  one  does  not  understand.  The  sermon  in  the 
vernacular  became  necessary  because  the  ni&m  (rabbinical 
homilies)  had  become  unintelligible;  likewise  the  German 
prayer  has  become  necessary  because  the  Hebrew  is  no 
longer  understood. 

Stein  pleaded  for  the  retention  of  the  Hebrew  as  a  bond 
of  union  among  Jews.  We  are  brethren,  descendants  of 


244  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

one  father;  argue  against  it  as  one  will,  the  national  ele- 
ment will  never  be  entirely  eliminated  from  Judaism.  We 
are  no  longer  a  nation,  it  is  true,  but  a  great  religious  com- 
munity scattered  all  over  the  earth;  the  Hebrew,  then,  is 
the  bond  of  union  of  the  widely  scattered  sections  of  our 
great  family. 

The  vote  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the  retention  of 
the  Hebrew  in  the  service  is  objectively  necessary  for  other 
reasons  than  the  legal  resulted  in  a  division,  thirteen  vot- 
ing in  the  affirmative  and  fifteen  in  the  negative. 

The  third  question  was  now  broached,  viz.,  whether  it 
appeared  advisable,  i.  e.,  subjectively  necessary,  to  retain 
the  Hebrew  in  part  in  the  public  service.  This  was  not 
debated  at  length,  and  the  vote  showed  that  the  members 
of  the  conference  answered  the  question  unanimously  in 
the  affirmative. 

This  point  having  been  disposed  of,  the  question  arose 
as  to  how  much  Hebrew  there  should  be  in  the  service. 
The  commission  had  reported  that  the  following  portions 
should  be  in  Hebrew :  1313  with  its  response,  VDW  to  the 
close  of  the  first  section;  the  first  three  and  the  last  three 
benedictions  of  the  rtfan  ;  and  the  reading  from  the  Torah. 

Maier,  the  chairman  of  the  commission,  impressed  upon 
the  conference  that  they  must  keep  in  mind,  not  the  ad- 
herents of  the  Shulchan  Ariik,  nor  the  irreligious  ele- 
ment who  have  turned  their  back  on  Judaism,  but  those 
who  desire  to  pray  to  the  God  of  their  fathers  in  the  spirit 
and  whom  the  traditional  prayers  no  longer  satisfy  either 
in  form  or  content.  The  best  rule  to  follow  is  to  return  to 
the  pristine  simplicity  of  the  ritual  as  recovered  by  the 
investigations  of  scholars  (especially  Zunz).  Hence  we 
should  retain  in  Hebrew  those  sections  which  express  most 
clearly  our  common  faith,  our  common  descent,  and  our 
common  hope.  The  portions  designated  by  the  commission 
do  this.  The  remainder  of  the  service  should  be  in  Ger- 
man. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846         245 

The  debate  on  this  point  elicited  some  interesting  re- 
marks on  the  Reading  of  the  Law. 

Wechsler  expressed  himself  as  opposed  altogether  to  the 
commission  on  this  point.  The  chief  reason  for  the  read- 
ing from  the  law  was  that  the  people  learn  its  contents; 
the  reading  was  not  intended  to  be  an  exercise  to  show 
familiarity  with  the  language  nor  yet  a  demonstration 
(Deut.  xxxi.  11).  But  in  our  day  the  minn  nxnp  (Read- 
ing of  the  Law)  is  not  instructive ;  it  has  neither  rhyme  nor 
reason.  The  people  do  not  understand  it.  If  it  be  our 
desire  to  carry  out  the  original  object  of  the  institution, 
viz.,  that  the  people  learn  the  contents  of  the  law,  then  it 
should  be  read  in  the  language  the  people  understand.  Let 
such  portions  as  cannot  be  read  in  German  because  of  their 
content  be  read  in  Hebrew. 

Herzfeld  declared  flatly  that  the  Reading  of  the  Law 
must  be  in  Hebrew.  There  is  a  mystical  element  in  this 
that  seems  to  me  important.  Were  we  to  relinquish  the 
minn  n*O1P  this  would  entail  the  entire  removal  of  the 
rnin  naD  (Scrolls  of  the  Law)  from  the  synagogue,  and 
such  a  proceeding  would  call  forth  a  universal  cry  of 
horror. 

Salomon  suggested  that  the  Torah  be  finished  in  a  trien- 
nial cycle  instead  of  annually.  Following  the  hints  in  the 
Talmud  that  certain  passages  of  the  Bible  were  partly  not 
read  and  partly  not  interpreted,  we  too  may  assume  the 
right  to  omit  such  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  as  no  longer 
suit  our  time.  The  reading  should  be  in  Hebrew  without 
translation,  because  the  sermon  is  based  on  the  portion 
read,  and  through  the  sermon  the  congregation  learns  the 
contents  of  the  Torah  section.  Besides  the  translation 
would  lengthen  the  service  needlessly.  Hirsch  held  that 
the  Torah  section  should  be  read  in  Hebrew  in  abbreviated 
form,  while  Jolowicz  argued  that  the  reading  should  be  in 
German,  and  proceeded  to  say  that  no  passage  is  objection- 
able to  him  who  comes  into  the  house  of  God  with  a  pure 
heart. 


246  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Holdheim  maintained  that  the  Torah  should  be  read  in 
Hebrew.  Our  children  must  learn  the  Pentateuch  in  the 
original  tongue.  In  addition  to  the  Pentateuchal  section 
portions  should  be  read  from  other  books  of  the  Bible  in 
the  vernacular  for  the  benefit  of  the  women. 1 

The  recommendations  of  the  commission  as  to  the  Hebrew 
portions  of  the  service  were  adopted  by  a  vote  of  eighteen 
to  twelve. 

The  Messianic  Question— The  Jewish  State 

The  all-important  question  of  the  present  attitude  of 
Jewish  thought  on  the  Messianic  hope  occupied  the  attention 
of  the  conference  in  the  discussion  of  the  next  point  in  the 
report  of  the  commission.  This  involved  such  allied  mat- 
ters as  the  particularistic  or  the  universalistic  interpreta- 
tion of  Judaism,  the  return  to  Palestine  and  the  restoration 
of  the  ancient  polity.  The  issue  was  clear  between  the  re- 
formers who  interpreted  the  Messianic  doctrine  in  its  uni- 
versal world- wide  significance  as  the  hope  for  the  coming  of 
the  Messianic  age  and  the  traditionalists,  for  whom  it  im- 
plied a  personal  Messiah  and  a  restored  Jewish  state,  as 
clear  as  it  is  at  this  day  between  political  Zionism  with  its 
national  program  and  reform  Judaism  with  its  universal- 
istic outlook. 

Before  the  debate  opened  Geiger,  who  presided,  called 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the'  point  at  issue  was  not  the 

1  The  first  public  debate  on  this  subject  of  reading  from  the  Torah 
is  very  interesting  in  the  light  of  what  has  taken  place  since.  The 
question  of  reading  from  the  Torah  has  been  debated  time  and  time 
again,  and  the  religious  leaders  are  still  divided  in  opinion,  as  was  the 
case  at  Frankfort ;  this  became  apparent  as  recently  as  the  year  1904, 
when  the  question  was  debated  at  the  meeting  of  the  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Eabbis  at  Louisville,  Ky.;  some  desired  a  selec- 
tion of  passages  for  public  reading,  others  advocated  that  everything 
in  the  Torah  be  read,  some  entered  the  lists  for  the  triennial,  others 
for  the  annual  cycle.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  reading  from  the 
scroll  is  universal  except  in  two  radical  reform  congregations  in  the 
United  States,  one  of  which  has  removed  the  ark  and  scroll  alto- 
gether. 


THE   EABBINICAL   COKFEKENCES,    1844-1846         247 

framing  of  a  distinct  doctrine  on  the  Messianic  question, 
but  merely  how  existing  prayers  were  to  be  judged,  and  if 
necessary  changed,  in  the  light  of  present  thought  on  the 
question.  Undoubtedly  there  was  the  widest  divergence 
of  opinion  on  the  Messianic  question,  but  it  should  be  stated 
at  the  very  outset  that  the  loyalty  to  the  state  of  even  such 
as  hold  the  traditional  view  on  the  Messiah  in  its  strictest 
form  is  not  to  be  questioned  for  a  moment. 1  The  only 
object  the  conference  had  in  view  was  to  satisfy  the  demand 
that  nothing  be  uttered  in  the  prayers  which  contradicts 
present  Jewish  conviction. 

The  report  of  the  commission  read :  ' '  The  Messianic  idea 
is  to  occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  liturgy  also  in  the 
future,  but  all  politico-national  elements  are  to  be  elim- 
inated. " 

Einhorn,  who  throughout  his  career  was  a  true  prophet 
of  universalistic  Judaism,  said  that  the  idea  of  the  Messiah 
is  most  closely  connected  with  the  whole  ceremonial  law; 
after  the  disappearance  of  priest  and  sacrifice,  the  Jew 
thought  salvation  possible  only  through  the  restoration  of 
the  state,  the  return  of  the  people  to  Palestine,  and  the  re- 
institution  of  the  sacrifices;  hence,  so  many  lamentations 
over  the  destruction  of  the  temple.  Wonderful  indeed  was 
the  conviction  and  the  courage  that  could  indulge  in  hope  in 
spite  of  ghetto  and  persecution.  Now,  however,  our  views 
have  changed;  formerly  the  people  believed  that  God's  pro- 

1  This  point  was  constantly  emphasized  by  Gabriel  Eiesser,  the 
foremost  champion  of  Jewish  civil  and  political  emancipation;  he 
would  not  have  religious  reform  required  as  a  condition  of  citizen- 
ship. Cf.  "David  Honigmann's  Aufzeichnungen  aus  seinen  Studien- 
jahren  (1841-5)  "  in  Jahrbuch  fur  judische  Geschichte  und  Literatur, 
1904,  p.  141.  In  this  the  great  religious  reformers  agreed  with  him, 
but  they  contended  none  the  less  that  reform  and  nationalism  were 
mutually  exclusive  terms;  cf.  Holdheim's  statement,  "only  by  the 
absolute  separation  of  the  political  and  religious  elements  in  Judaism 
is  a  thoroughgoing  reform  possible,"  Autonomie  der  Babbinen, 
Preface,  VII. 


248  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

tection  rested  particularly  on  the  holy  land  and  the  holy 
people  ;  they  believed  that  He  took  pleasure  in  sacrifices  and 
that  the  priesthood  was  a  necessary  institution  for  the  re- 
mission of  sin.  The  prophets  preached  against  this  nar- 
row view.  The  loss  of  political  independence  was  be- 
wailed formerly  as  a  misfortune,  but  in  reality  this  loss 
was  really  progress  and  entailed  not  a  cramping,  but  an 
expansion,  of  the  religious  spirit.  Israel  approached  nearer 
the  fulfillment  of  its  mission.  Devotion  took  the  place  of 
sacrifice.  From  Israel's  midst  God's  word  was  to  be  car- 
ried to  all  portions  of  the  earth.  Only  the  Talmud  moves 
in  a  circle;  we,  however,  favor  progress.  "  Formerly  I 
looked  upon  the  Messianic  idea  as  a  surrogate  of  the  idea  of 
immortality,  but  I  do  so  no  longer  ;  I  see  in  it  the  hope  of 
both  earthly  and  heavenly  salvation.  There  is  nothing 
objectionable  in  the  idea.  Also  the  belief  in  the  election 
of  Israel  contains  nothing  that  is  repugnant  ;  nay,  we  must 
retain  it  as  the  consciousness  of  an  undeniable  advantage, 
for  it  creates  a  beneficial  self-consciousness  over  against 
the  ruling  church.  I  vote  for  the  elimination  of  all  peti- 
tions for  the  restoration  of  bloody  sacrifices  and  political 
independence;  on  the  other  hand,  I  wish  that  the  Mes- 
sianic prayers  be  framed  in  such  a  manner  as  to  express 
the  hope  for  the  spiritual  re-birth  and  the  union  of  all  men 
in  faith  and  in  love  through  the  agency  of  Israel.  '  '  1 

Hess  asserted  that  the  belief  in  a  personal,  i.  e.,  a  polit- 
ical Messiah,  had  disappeared  from  among  German  Jewry  ; 
it  should  therefore  be  eliminated  from  the  liturgy,  for  we 
should  not  petition  God  for  that  in  which  we  no  longer 
believe. 

Holdheim  called  attention  to  two  points  requiring  cor- 
rection. (1)  It  is  held,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  hope 


1Einhorn  embodied  these  views  in  his  prayer-book 
For  a  clear  exposition  of  the  principles  by  which  he  was  guided  in 
this  work  see  his  statement  '  '  Die  neue  Gebetsordnung  der  Hai  Sinai- 
Gemeinde  zu  Baltimore,"  Sinai,  I,  97-100,  127-139.  Baltimore,  1856. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          249 

for  a  political  restoration  is  in  conflict  with  the  feelings  of 
patriotism  for  the  fatherland;  while  it  is  asserted,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  these  are  not  in  conflict.  (2)  We  have 
been  warned  not  to  accentuate  the  national  element  because 
of  possible  misinterpretation.  As  against  this  it  has  been 
correctly  stated  that  we  are  not  to  pay  any  attention  to 
misinterpretations.  The  petition  for  a  return  to  Palestine 
to  establish  a  political  state  for  those  who  still  suffer  oppres- 
sion is  superfluous,  on  the  one  hand,  because  both  those 
who  are  oppressed,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  us,  would  be  helped 
only  by  the  removal  of  oppression ;  hence,  we  should  petition 
for  this;  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  inadmissable  because  it 
makes  of  the  Messianic  expectation,  not  a  religious,  but  a 
purely  material  hope,  which  is  cheerfully  surrendered 
wherever  the  political  status  is  satisfactory.  But  the  Mes- 
sianic hope  truly  understood  is  indeed  religious.  It  ex- 
presses either  the  wish  for  redemption  and  liberation  from 
spiritual  evil,  and  the  realization  of  the  Kingdom  of  God 
on  earth  or  for  the  political  restoration  of  the  Mosaic  theoc- 
racy which  alone  makes  it  possible  for  the  Jew  to  fulfill 
the  whole  Mosaic  Law.  This  latter  religious  wish  can  be 
surrendered  only  by  those  who  have  a  higher  conception  of 
Judaism,  who  do  not  believe  the  fulfillment  of  its  mission 
to  be  dependent  on  the  existence  of  a  Jewish  state,  and 
who  are  convinced  that  the  ceasing  of  the  separate  political 
existence  of  Jewry  was  necessary  for  the  highest  interests 
of  Judaism  and  commanded  by  the  religion.  Only  a  clar- 
ified religious  point  of  view  can  displace  an  obscure  one. 
But  those  who  consider  a  political  restoration  necessary  in 
the  interest  of  the  religion  may  not  surrender  this,  however 
prosperous  they  may  be,  since  religion,  as  they  view  it,  de- 
mands categorically  the  fulfillment  of  this  expectation* 
The  rigidly  orthodox,  as  well  as  the  reformers,  stand  on 
religious  ground;  the  difference  between  them  is  that  the 
former  desire  the  restoration  of  the  old  political  status  in 
the  interest  of  the  religion,  while  the  latter  posit  the  closest 


250  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

adherence  to  the  politico-national  conditions  of  the  present 
as  the  demand  of  religion.  * 

Hirsch  declared  that  the  Messianic  doctrine  is  the  center 
of  Judaism.  .  .  .  The  perfectibility  of  mankind  on  this 
earth  is  the  characteristic  mark  of  Judaism  whereby  it  is 
distinguished  from  all  other  religions.  All  the  prophets 
agree  in  this.  If  they  were  able  to  picture  the  Messianic 
time  only  in  terms  of  a  prosperous  Jewish  state,  this  was 
due  to  their  human  limitations.  The  prophets  revealed  the 
future  only  to  improve  their  own  age ;  therefore,  they  did 
not  stand  above  their  age  and  had  to  teach  the  truth  in  the 
terms  of  their  age.  In  the  Talmudic  era,  the  time  of  op- 
pression, the  Messianic  doctrine  had  to  shape  itself  accord- 
ingly. Everywhere  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  Messiah  is 
fulfilling  itself  rapidly.  Everywhere  the  emancipation  of 
mankind  is  being  striven  for  so  that  a  morally  pure  and 
holy  life  may  be  possible  of  being  lived  by  man  on  this 
earth. 2 

Salomon  contrasted  the  heathen  poets  who  sang  of  a 
golden  age  in  dim  antiquity  with  the  Jewish  prophets  who 
proclaimed  the  golden  age  in  the  far  future,  the  time  of 
light,  truth,  harmony  and  peace.  This  is  the  Biblical  idea 
of  redemption.  ...  If  we  consider  that  the  intelligent 
section  of  Jewry  to-day  repudiates  the  belief  in  a  personal, 
political  Messiah,  that  even  a  great  number  of  the  so-called 
"pious  ones"  restrict  the  belief  in  a  personal  Messiah  to 
the  prayers  in  the  synagogue,  while  in  their  life  there  is 
not  a  trace  of  their  acceptance  of  this  belief ;  it  is  absolutely 

*For  an  elaboration  of  Holdheim 's  views  on  this  subject  see  his 
Das  Religiose  und  Politische  im  Judenthum,  Schwerin,  1845 ;  Die 
Autonomie  der  Rabbinen,  10,  20,  Schwerin,  1843;  he  gave  detailed 
expression  to  his  ideas  on  the  reform  of  the  liturgy  in  a  series  of 
articles  entitled  "Ueber  die  Prinzipien  eines  dem  gegenwartigen 
Religionsbewusstsein  entsprechenden  Cultus"  which  appeared  in  the 
Literaturblatt  des  Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  1846,  pp. 
33,  42,  49,  53,  57,  61,  105,  109,  113,  117,  121,  125,  129,  133. 

aCf.  his  Die  Messiaslehre  im  Judenfhum.    Leipzig,  1843. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFEBENCES,    1844-1846         251 

necessary,  unless  we  would  make  a  sport  of  religion,  to 
frame  the  expression  of  the  Messianic  doctrine  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  make  it  purely  spiritual,  particularly  as  our 
ancient  teachers  were  unanimous  in  the  belief  that  our 
redemption  would  take  place,  not  through  human  agency, 
but  would  be  accomplished  by  God  himself. 

Maier  stated  that  the  hope  for  a  political  restoration  has 
been  repudiated  by  the  majority  of  the  Jews  in  Germany, 
and  if  we  do  not  wish  that  the  attendants  at  our  services 
should  be  guilty  of  mental  reservations  when  the  petition 
for  the  restoration  of  a  Jewish  state  is  uttered,  we  shall 
have  to  remove  it  from  the  liturgy  and  give  expression  only 
to  the  universal  and  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  Mes- 
sianic doctrine. 

A.  Adler  criticized  the  statement  frequently  made  to  the 
effect  that  the  monotheistic  belief  is  the  only  thing  that 
differentiates  Judaism  from  other  religions.  This  state- 
ment he  contended,  confounds  principle  with  content. 
Monotheism  is  indeed  the  principle  of  Judaism,  but  it  does 
not  constitute  its  chief  content.  There  are  other  religion- 
ists who  believe  in  the  unity  of  God  and  still  are  not  Jews. 
The  belief  in  a  future  Messiah  is  peculiar  to  Judaism  and 
differentiates  it  from  other  religions  more  than  does  mono- 
theism. This  belief  gives  us  the  assurance: 

1.  That  goodness,  virtue  and  holiness  will  issue  as  vic- 
tors from  the  contest  with  evil,  vice  and  sin. 

2.  That  the  history  of  the  world  does  not  move  in  a 
circle,  but  will  finally  reach  a  goal,  viz.,  the  highest  develop- 
ment of  mankind. 

3.  That  mankind  is  not  doomed  forever  to  darkness,  but 
will  be  reconciled  with  God  in  the  end. 

It  contains  implicitly  the  belief  in  the  ideal  resurrection 
of  the  nations  and  assures  therewith  the  immortality  of 
individual  man.  We  will  prove  our  true  religiosity  when, 
instead  of  declaring  what  the  Messianic  belief  is  not,  we 
will  state  how  it  is  to  be  conceived  in  its  very  truth.  By 


252  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

negating  we  merely  take  away  and  contribute  nothing,  by 
positing  we  contribute  something  important  and  take  away 
nothing.  Therefore  we  must  substitute  in  our  prayers  the 
true  idea  of  the  Messiah  for  the  personal  representation  and 
give  this  adequate  expression. 

Auerbach  held  that  the  Messianic  idea  is  the  soul  of 
positive  Judaism  and  ite  development  lies  in  the  trans- 
formation of  the  national  into  the  purely  religious.  In 
the  Talmud  the  national  ideals  are  uppermost;  the  whole 
Talmudic  system  was  in  opposition  to  such  individual  utter- 
ances as  expressed  other  interpretations  of  the  Messianic 
idea.  At  that  time  the  national  expectation  could  not  be 
surrendered.  In  our  days,  however,  the  ideals  of  justice 
and  the  brotherhood  of  men  have  been  so  strengthened 
through  the  laws  and  institutions  of  modern  states,  that 
they  can  never  again  be  shattered ;  we  are  witnessing  an 
ever  nearer  approach  of  the  establishment  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  on  earth  through  the  strivings  of  mankind. 

Herzf eld :  Whatever  is  false  must  be  excised.  No  empty 
phrases !  Everything  must  be  clear  and  definite.  The  con- 
ference must  declare  what  it  means  by  redemption ;  yes,  it 
should  state  that  we  are  now  entering  upon  the  period  of 
redemption.  Freedom  and  virtue  are  spreading,  the  world 
is  growing  better. 

Herxheimer  emphasized  the  thoughts  that  the  Messianic 
idea  seems  to  express  discontent  with  present  conditions, 
trust  in  the  goodness  of  Providence  and  hope  for  a  happier 
future.  In  times  of  misfortune  the  people  recalled  the 
better  past  and  associated  this  with  David  and  his  time. 
The  best  course  to  pursue  in  this  matter  is  to  retain  all 
general  expressions  of  these  hopes  and  to  eliminate  every 
utterance  which  was  called  forth  by  the  oppressions  of 
the  Middle  Ages. 

Wagner  claimed  that  the  Messianic  belief  is  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Judaism  and  as  old  as  this  itself.  It 
must  have  always  a  prominent  place  in  the  liturgy,  because 


THE   BABBINICAL   CONFEEENCES,    1844-1846         253 

it  is  a  characteristic  mark  of  Judaism,  includes  definitely 
the  idea  of  the  election  of  Israel,  and  voices  our  hopes  that 
the  fundamental  truths  of  Judaism  may  become  the  com- 
mon possession  of  all  peoples.  Let  the  rebuilding  of  Jeru- 
salem and  Zion  be  mentioned  in  our  prayers  as  a  tribute 
of  piety  to  the  holy  city  and  the  seat  of  holiness.  The  peti- 
tions for  a  return  to  Palestine  and  the  restoration  of  the 
sacrificial  cult  must  be  stricken  out. 

Kahn  averred  that  the  Bible  does  not  require  us  to 
believe  in  a  personal  Messiah.  The  prophets  are  not  sooth- 
sayers, but  truthsayers  (nicht  Wahrsager  sondern  Weis- 
sager).  Not  all  of  them  prophesy  the  coming  of  a 
personal  Messiah,  but  all  agree  in  picturing  an  ideal  Mes- 
sianic era.  So  do  we  also  expect  the  coming  of  a  Messianic 
era,  but  not  of  a  personal  Messiah  with  accompanying 
political  changes.  The  prayer  umro  nnK  (expressing  the 
doctrine  of  the  election  of  Israel)  may  be  retained  as  his- 
torically significant,  but  not  such  passages  as  emphasize  a 
still  existin  difference  between  Israel  and  other  nations 


Stein  in  opposition  to  most  of  the  members  pleaded  for 
the  retention  of  the  prayers  for  the  coming  of  the  personal 
Messiah.  Although  our  hopes  are  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messianic  era  of  peace  and  good-will,  still  we  may  surely 
leave  to  God  the  manner  of  the  fulfillment  ;  all  great  events 
in  the  world's  history  have  been  accomplished  by  great 
personalities  ;  may  we  not  then  confidently  expect  that  this 
greatest  and  highest  consummation  of  all,  the  ushering  in 
of  religious  harmony,  peace  and  brotherhood  will  be  ac- 
complished through  one  sent  of  God  ?  1 

He  also  pleaded  for  the  retention  of  the  prayers  for  the 
rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  and  continued  :  2 

1  Stein  changed  his  position  on  this  subject  radically  during  ensuing 
years.     In  his  book  Die  Schrift  des  Lebens,  published  in  1872,  he 
repudiated  the  belief  in  a  personal  Messiah.     The  people  Israel  is 
the  Messiah,  pp.  319-36,  notably  320  and  336. 

2  For  his  change  of  view  on  this  subject  also  see  ibid.,  318. 


254  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  followers  of  all  the  religions  founded  upon  the  Bible 
look  to  Jerusalem  as  the  holy  city  and  I  believe  that  when 
the  Kingdom  of  God  will  be  established  on  earth  and  all 
men  will  be  united  in  the  belief  in  the  One  God  and  in 
brotherly  love  the  holy  city  will  arise  from  its  desolation 
and  a  magnificent  temple  where  all  peoples  will  worship 
together  will  be  built  there  as  the  visible  symbol  of  that 
spiritual  brotherhood  and  union. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  petition  for  a  return  to  Pales- 
tine must  be  excised  for  this  does  not  come  from  our  hearts 
and  is  therefore  untrue.  We  know  but  one  fatherland, 
that  in  which  we  live ;  we  cannot  pray  ' '  mayst  thou  take  us 
back  in  joy  to  our  land,'7  as  though  our  present  home  were 
strange  to  us  and  our  true  home  lay  a  thousand  miles  dis- 
tant. 

There  is  another  reason  for  this.  Our  fathers,  oppressed 
and  trampled  to  the  earth,  had  to  consider  the  dispersion 
as  a  curse  perforce,  and  therefore  they  prayed,  WKtDft  "05D1 
U5HKD  Wh  ("because  of  our  sins  we  were  exiled  from  our 
land").  Quite  a  contrary  conception  is  ours.  We  have 
begun  to  recognize  that  the  dispersion  was  a  blessing,  that 
God  has  scattered  us  over  the  earth  as  "the  seed  of  truth," 
so  that  there  might  be  worshipers  of  the  one  only  and  true 
God  everywhere.  (Is.  Ixi.  9.  Zach.  viii.  13,  23.) 

Formstecher  remarked  that  scientific  theology  must 
recognize  the  Messianic  idea  as  the  red  thread  which  runs 
through  all  the  stadia  in  the  development  of  Judaism,  but 
where  lies  the  necessity  of  incorporating  a  formulated  Mes- 
sianic doctrine  into  the  liturgy?  We  have  the  Messianic 
doctrine  in  the  Bible.  Any  concrete  form  into  which  we 
would  cast  it  would  constitute  it  a  dogma  and  Judaism 
desires  no  dogmas.  Therefore  this  whole  Messianic  matter 
should  be  excluded  from  the  liturgy  and  its  place  be  taken 
by  readings  from  the  prophets  on  the  subject  to  be  sup- 
plemented by  the  sermon. 

Philippson  said  epigrammatically  that  revelation  is  the 


THE   RABBINICAL  CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          255 

foundation,  and  the  Messianic  idea  the  roof  of  Judaism. 
Judaism  however  includes  no  political  striving  for  a  realm 
of  its  own,  even  though  the  term  nation  must  be  retained 
because  of  the  fact  of  descent.  All  political  features  must 
be  discarded. 

The  resolution  on  this  subject  as  adopted  finally  by  the 
majority  reads:  "The  Messianic  idea  should  receive  prom- 
inent mention  in  the  prayers,  but  all  petitions  for  our  re- 
turn to  the  land  of  our  fathers  and  for  the  restoration  of  a 
Jewish  state  should  be  eliminated  from  the  prayers." 

The  Mussaf  Prayer  for  the  Restoration  of  the  Sacrifices 

The  whole  commission  agreed  on  reporting  that  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  n^fiD  (the  eighteen  benedictions)  was  unneces- 
sary, and  the  majority  of  the  commission  held  that  the 
whole  Mussaf  (additional)  service  was  inadmissable  because 
the  sacrificial  cult  was  outgrown  and  no  longer  expressed 
the  religious  status  quo. 

This  report  also  called  forth  a  lengthy  debate,  a  few  ex- 
pressions, from  which  follow: 

Salomon :  With  our  conception  of  the  Messianic  idea  the 
Mussaf,  which  is  primarily  a  petition  for  the  sacrifices,  is 
a  contradictio  in  adjecto. 

Formstecher:  Basing  as  we  do  on  the  positive  historical 
standpoint,  we  should  mention  the  sacrifices  in  our  prayers 
as  a  historical  reminiscence,  not  in  the  way  of  petition  for 
their  reinstitution,  but  in  the  way  of  thanks  that  we  have 
substituted  prayer  for  sacrifice  in  accordance  with  the 
utterances  of  the  prophets. 

Holdheim:  According  to  the  legal  interpretation  of 
Judaism  sacrifice  is  expiation;  repentance  alone  does  not 
bring  forgiveness,  altar  and  priest  are  necessary.  This 
idea  was  combated  by  the  prophets,  but  it  persisted  among 
the  people,  and  the  Talmud  adheres  to  this  external  justi- 
fication ;  therefore  prayer  is  conceived  in  it  as  only  taking 
the  place  of  sacrifice  in  the  interim  until  this  shall  be 


256      TH£  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

restored.  We,  however,  occupy  an  altogether  different 
position  in  this  matter  and  cannot  possibly  petition  for  the 
sacrificial  cult.  However,  the  entire  elimination  of  the 
Mussaf  service  would  meet  with  general  disapprobation. 
Let  us  retain  the  form,  but  substitute  for  the  traditional 
prayers  such  others  as  express  our  religious  standpoint  in 
the  matter. 

The  vote  on  the  question— "  Shall  the  petitions  for  the 
restoration  of  the  sacrificial  cult  be  removed  from  the 
prayers?"  was  unanimously  in  the  affirmative. 

"  Shall  the  sections  of  the  Torah  which  command  the 
offering  of  sacrifices  continue  to  be  read  ? ' '  Majority  in  the 
affirmative  if  the  text  be  read  in  Hebrew. 

"Shall  reminiscences  of  the  sacrifices  find  a  place  in  the 
liturgy?"  Majority  in  the  affirmative. 

Cycle  of  Torah  Readings 

The  commission  recommended  the  triennial  cycle,  and 
the  abolition  of  the  Aufrufen  (calling  up  of  seven  men 
during  the  reading  from  the  Torah)  ;  the  referee  Maier, 
however,  declared  for  the  retention  of  Aufrufen. 

The  triennial  cycle  received  all  the  votes  but  five. 

All  voted  for  the  translation  of  the  Pentateuchal  section 
in  order  to  make  the  people  again  familiar  with*  the  Torah 
as  had  been  the  purpose  of  the  Targum  of  old ;  the  only  dif- 
ference of  opinion  arose  from  the  consideration  of  the  best 
manner  of  carrying  this  out;  many  felt  that  this  transla- 
tion or  explanation  should  take  place  only  when  there  was 
no  sermon. 

The  decision  in  favor  of  the  triennial  cycle  brought  Up 
the  question  of  the  celebration  of  PPrtn  firing  (the  Feast  of 
Rejoicing  in  the  Law).1  Should  this  feast  be  celebrated 
annually  or  triennially  and  should  the  pentateuchal  sec- 
1The  twenty-third  day  of  Tishri;  this  holiday,  which  was  cele- 
brated on  the  day  following  the  eight  days  of  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles, assumed  a  distinctive  place  in  Jewish  life.  It  was  easily 
the  most  joyous  of  the  festivals  of  the  synagogue. 


THE    KABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          257 


tions  ronnn  n«r  1  and  n^xii2  be  read  annually  or  trien- 
nially? 

During  the  debate  on  these  questions,  Maier  contended 
that  rnin  nnnty  is  only  the  second  day  of  m*y  TOS?  ; 
therefore  he  was  opposed  to  the  annual  reading  of  i"O~nn  DKT. 

Philippson  expressed  himself  similarly  because  we  have 
in  mjn3B>  (the  Feast  of  Weeks)  a  feast  of  rejoicing  in  the 
Law.  Holdheim  asserted  that  the  significance  of  the  holi- 
day as  rnin  nnftt?  is  of  late  origin  ;  in  the  original  prayers 
for  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  no  mention  is  made  of  it;  it 
is  thus  designated  only  in  the  Piyyutim.  The  vote  showed 
the  majority  to  be  in  favor  of  the  triennial  celebration  of 
the  holiday. 

Aufrufen     (Calling  to  the  Law). 

The  Commission,  with  the  exception  of  Maier,  reported 
in  favor  of  its  abolition. 

Gosen,  one  of  the  ultra  conservatives,  made  the  surpris- 
ing statement  that  he  wished  the  Aufrufen  retained  be- 
cause the  Jew  looks  upon  it  as  a  kind  of  confession  of  faith, 
as  a  personal  acceptance  of  the  Law,  almost  as  the  Christian 
does  the  Eucharist. 

Holdheim  called  the  correctness  of  this  statement  into 
question  ;  but,  said  he,  if  this  is  the  case,  it  is  a  reprehensible 
error,  for  the  removal  of  which  it  were  desirable  to  so  ar- 
range the  Torah  reading  that  the  people  would  consider  it 
an  exercise  for  instruction;  but  it  may  never  become  the 
occasion  of  introducing  a  sacrament  into  Judaism,  which 
has  no  sacraments  in  the  Christian  interpretation  of  the 
term.  Therefore  he  favored  the  abolition  of  Aufrufen  if 
for  no  other  reason  than  to  prevent  the  error  that  the  Jew 
considers  it  equivalent  to  a  confession  of  faith. 

A.  Adler  favored  its  abolition  because  the  Aufrufen 
accentuates  the  distinction  between  the  sexes  in  religious 

1  The  closing  section  of  the  Fifth  Book  of  Moses. 

2  The  opening  section  of  the  First  Book  of  Moses. 

17 


258  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

functions,  men  alone  being  called  to  the  Torah,  while  we 
must  insist  upon  equality  of  men  and  women  in  religious 
functions.  Further,  the  whole  congregation  would  take 
more  interest  in  the  reading  were  there  no  Aufrufen,  since 
many  look  upon  the  reading  as  especially  for  those  who  are 
called. 

In  spite  of  these  spirited  expressions  the  great  majority 
voted  for  the  retention  of  the  Aufrufen,  but  against  the 
repetition  of  the  VBBO.  (The  closing  section  of  the  weekly 
portion. ) 

The  Organ  * 

1  It  is  rather  remarkable  that  this  question  should  have  occasioned 
no  debate  at  the  first  public  gathering  in  which  it  was  broached. 
There  has  been  no  modern  synagogal  reform  which  has  called  forth 
more  heated  controversy  than  this  of  introducing  the  organ  into  the 
house  of  worship.  Time  and  again  it  has  been  a  bone  of  contention 
in  congregations,  and  still  to-day  ranges  Jews  on  opposite  sides. 
The  very  first  official  expression  we  have  on  the  question  is  the 
report  of  the  Committee  submitted  to  this  conference,  (ProtoJcolle, 
326-334),  although  there  were  individual  expressions  on  this  subject 
in  the  collection  of  opinions  called  forth  by  the  reforms  in  the  Ham- 
burg temple  in  1818,  one  of  which  was  the  introduction  of  the  organ. 
The  Committee's  report  at  the  Frankfort  Conference  marshalled 
reasons  in  favor  of  the  playing  of  the  instrument.  Sixty  years  later 
(1905)  the  question  was  still  a  living  issue  in  Germany;  the  Cologne 
congregation  was  almost  disrupted  because  of  the  resolution  to  intro- 
duce the  organ.  Four  of  the  six  members  of  the  Berlin  rabbinate 
in  1904  issued  an  opinion  that  the  innovation  was  not  against  the 
principles  of  Judaism.  (Das  Gutachten  des  Berliner  Eabbinats 
ilber  die  Orgel,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXVIII,  1904,  65;  see  also  Hid.,  121, 
349.)  The  celebrated  Jewish  scholar,  A.  Berliner,  in  that  same  year 
took  a  stand  against  the  introduction  of  the  organ;  see  his  pamphlet, 
"Zur  Lehr  und  zur  Wehr";  also  the  lengthy  criticism  of  this 
pamphlet  by  Gustav  Karpeles  in  defense  of  the  organ,  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
LXVIII  (1904),  349-50;  cf.  also  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  I,  89-98; 
Philippson,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXV  (1861),  no.  48;  Wiener,  Wechsler, 
Adler,  Kahn,  Low,  Aub  (all  favorable),  Landau  (opposed),  ibid. 
In  Germany  many  conservative  congregations  have  organs  in  their 
synagogues;  in  France  it  is  universal;  see  program  of  central  con- 
sistory of  May,  1846,  which  ordered  organs  to  be  placed  in  the 


THE   RABBINICAL  CONFEEENCES,  1844-1846         259 

The  question,  Is  the  organ  permitted  in  the  Synagogue? 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  a  unanimous  vote  without 
debate. 

A  further  question  was  "May  and  should  the  organ  be 
played  by  Jews  on  Sabbath?"  This  occassioned  a  debate 
whereof  a  few  expressions  follow: 

Lowengard:  Yes;  the  expression  BHP03  nttfiP  pK  (rab- 
binical legislation  for  the  Sabbath  is  not  considered  bind- 
ing in  the  performance  of  any  service  in  the  temple)  must 
be  applied  also  to  the  synagogue,  since  we  no  longer  pray 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem. 

Einhorn:  If  the  Talmudists  make  a  distinction  between 
temple  and  synagogue,  the  reason  is  that  they  consider  the 
offering  of  sacrifices  necessary  for  full  divine  service.  We, 
however,  consider  the  abolition  of  sacrifice  as  a  step  in  ad- 
vance and  therefore  Bnpoa  nnB>  pK  is  also  applicable  to 
the  synagogue. 

Holdheim:  We  have  almost  unanimously  resolved  to 
eliminate  from  our  prayers  the  petition  for  the  return  to 
Jerusalem  and  the  re-institution  of  the  sacrificial  service, 
and  have  declared  clearly  thereby  that  our  houses  of  wor- 
ship are  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem, 
that  our  service,  with  its  devotional  inwardness  is  of  a 
higher  character  than  the  sacrificial  service,  displaces  it  for 
the  whole  future  and  makes  it  dispensable.  If,  then,  the 
sacrificial  service  in  itself  involved  no  desecration  of  the 
Sabbath,  if  the  instrumental  music  accompanying  it  gave  it 
a  higher  consecration,  why  should  this  be  less  the  case  with 
our  service  that  is  of  a  loftier  character  according  to  our 
conviction  ? 

The  question  was  decided  unanimously  in  the  affirmative. 
This  closed  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mission on  the  liturgy. 

synagogues,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  346.  In  England  only  the  three  so- 
called  reform  synagogues  have  the  organs,  though  at  marriages  the 
organ  is  used  in  orthodox  synagogues.  In  the  United  States  it  is 
general,  excepting  in  ultra-orthodox  houses  of  worship. 


260  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Circumcision 

A  communication  was  addressed  by  Dr.  Fr.  Th.  Baltz  to 
the  Conference  on  the  subject  of  circumcision.  He  wrote 
that  circumcision  has  evil  results,  giving  rise  to  sexual 
diseases  and  sometimes  to  impotence.  He  proposed  that, 
if  it  cannot  be  abolished  altogether,  it  should  be  performed 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  preclude  danger  and  evil  results. 
The  conference  answered  by  stating  that  it  recognized 
gratefully  the  good  intentions  of  the  writer ;  as  for  the  sup- 
posed evil  results  of  circumcision  that  he  mentions,  it  must 
be  said  that  there  are  other  medical  authorities  who  claim 
just  the  opposite ;  Jewish  marriages  are  very  fruitful,  as  is 
well  known.  At  any  rate,  the  matter  is  of  the  highest  im- 
portance and  for  that  very  reason  is  not  ripe  for  consider- 
ation. As  for  the  manner  of  performing  the  operation, 
most  of  the  German  governments  had  passed  laws  on  the 
subject  and  put  it  under  the  supervision  of  the  sanitary 
police.  The  Conference  would  undoubtedly  take  up  the 
subject  at  some  future  time  and  would  then  take  into  con- 
sideration the  communication  of  the  writer. 

The  Status  of  Woman 

During  the  debates  on  the  report  of  the  commission  on 
liturgy,  the  necessity  of  declaring  the  equality  of  w^oman 
with  man  in  the  performance  of  public  religious  functions 
was  mentioned  by  several  speakers.  One  of  the  marked 
achievements  of  the  reform  movement  has  been  the  change 
in  the  religious  status  of  woman.  According  to  the  Talmud 
and  the  rabbinical  codes  woman  can  take  no  part  in  public 
religious  functions;  the  question  was  brought  formally  be- 
fore the  conference  by  Samuel  Adler  in  the  resolution 
which,  after  reciting  the  traditional  view,  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  conference  declares  that  "she  has  the  same  obli- 
gation as  man  to  participate  from  youth  up  in  the  instruc- 
tion in  Judaism  and  in  the  public  services  and  that  the 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          261 

custom  not  to  include  women  in  the  number  of  individuals 
necessary  for  the  conducting  of  a  public  service  is  only  a 
custom  and  has  no  religious  basis. 

The  subject  was  not  debated  at  length  and  was  referred 
to  a  commission  consisting  of  S.  Adler,  Einhorn,  and  A. 
Adler  for  report  at  the  next  conference. 

The  Sabbath  Question 

A  Commission,  consisting  of  Geiger,  A.  Adler,  Wechsler, 
S.  Adler,  and  Kahn,  had  been  appointed  at  the  Brunswick 
Conference  on  the  motion  of  Hirsch  to  report  on  the  ques- 
tion, "If  there  were  any  means,  and  if  so,  what,  to  recon- 
cile Jewish  doctrines  and  the  demands  of  modern  life  in 
reference  to  the  Sabbath. ' ' x  President  Stein  suggested 
that  owing  to  lack  of  time  the  consideration  of  the  report 
ol  the  Commission  be  postponed  until  the  next  conference. 
Since  the  whole  report  was  constructed  upon  one  leading 
idea  as  its  basis,  said  he,  it  would  not  be  fair  to  dismember 
the  report  by  taking  up  some  points  and  neglecting  others. 
The  report  should  be  considered  as  a  whole.  He  suggested 
that  the  report  be  printed  and  distributed  to  the  members 
of  the  Conference  who  would  then  have  time  to  study  it 
and  come  prepared  for  a  full  and  free  discussion  next  year. 
However,  he  did  not  wish  to  dictate  to  the  Conference  and 
he  would  put  the  question  whether  the  members  wished  to 
enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  whole  report.  This  was 
negatived. 

The  question  was  then  put  whether  special  points  in  the 
report  should  be  taken  up. 

Geiger,  the  chairman  of  the  Commission,  desired  special 
points  in  the  report  to  be  discussed :  they  are  of  such  im- 
portance and  are  so  constantly  brought  to  the  attention  of 
all  rabbis  that  they  must  have  been  thought  upon  earnestly 
by  all,  and  therefore  all  must  be  ready  to  discuss  them. 
The  difficulties  presented  by  the  question  of  Sabbath  ob- 

1  Supra,  219. 


262          ^HE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

servance  are  among  the  most  serious  confronting  us.  It 
is  not  a  question  of  theory,  but  of  practice.  The  demands 
of  life  require  action  on  our  part.  Even  though  we  may 
not  all  agree  on  principles,  still  we  may  be  able  to  agree 
on  results. 

However,  the  Conference  decided  to  postpone  the  con- 
sideration of  the  separate  points  also  till  the  next  confer- 
ence when  the  Sabbath  question  was  to  be  the  first  order 
of  business.  It  was  also  decided  to  print  the  report  of  the 
commission. 

The  Commission  was  directed  to  consider  also  all  ques- 
tions connected  with  the  observance  of  the  holidays  and 
fast  days,  and  incorporate  this  in  their  report. 

Revision  of  Marriage  Laws 

Time  not  permitting  the  extended  consideration  necessary 
for  so  important  a  subject,  the  Commission  on  the  Revi- 
sion of  the  Marriage  Laws  appointed  at  the  Brunswick  Con- 
ference was  ordered  to  publish  their  report,  which  would 
be  taken  up  at  the  next  Conference. 

Jewish  Theological  Faculty 

Philippson  offered  the  following  resolution:  "The  rab- 
binical conference  declares  that  it  considers  the  foundation 
of  one  or  more  Jewish  theological  faculties  in  Germany  a 
worthy  and  high  endeavor  and  that  it  will  co-operate 
earnestly  with  such  work. 

"Resolved,  that  a  Commission  be  appointed  whose  aim  it 
shall  be  to  interest  the  public  in  this  noble  cause  and  to 
work  for  its  consummation  in  connection  with  representa- 
tive and  discerning  men  in  all  walks  of  life."  The  Com- 
mission named  consisted  of  Geiger,  Philippson,  Stein,  Hold- 
heim  and  Salomon. 

Name 

The  President  suggested  the  advisability  of  changing  the 
name  of  the  conference  from  "Conference  of  the  Rabbis 


THE    RABBINICAL,  CONFEKENCES,   1844-1846         263 

of  Germany"  to  "German  Rabbinical  Conference."  The 
former  name,  said  he,  confines  the  conference  within  too 
narrow  bounds,  since  it  excludes  all  foreigners.  There  is 
no  German  Judaism.  Judaism  is  universal.  Thus  he 
knew  of  a  Hungarian  and  a  French  rabbi  who  wished  to 
attend.  The  majority  agreed  with  him,  and  it  was  resolved 
to  call  the  society  "The  Conference  of  German  Rabbis." 

It  was  resolved  to  issue  an  address  to  the  congregations 
summarizing  the  work  of  the  Conference.  This  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Editorial  Commission,  which  consisted  of 
Stein,  Jost,  Auerbach  and  Formstecher. 

A  Commission  consisting  of  Philippson,  Stein  and 
Formstecher  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  manual  for 
domestic  devotion. 

The  Commission  for  further  consideration  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  was  named,  viz.,  Stein,  Salomon,  Geiger,  Maier, 
Herzfeld. 

The  election  of  the  Executive  Committee  for  the  next 
Conference  resulted  in  the  choice  of  Geiger,  Philippson, 
Holdheim  and  Herxheimer. 

Addresses  to  the  Conference 

One  of  the  most  striking  features  of  the  Frankfort  Con- 
ference is  the  evidence  that  has  been  preserved  of  the  keen 
interest  it  aroused  throughout  Germany.  Numerous  con- 
gregations and  societies  sent  addresses  of  confidence  and 
sympathy;  these  addresses  came  from  Bingen,  Darmstadt, 
Alzey,  Alsfeld,  Mayence,  Ekenkoben,  Frankenthal,  Griin- 
stadt,  Musbach  in  the  Palatinate,  Breslau,  Mannheim, 
Obermoshel,  Schwitzingen,  Neustadt  in  Upper  Silesia, 
Miinster,  Worms,  Giessen  and  Frankfort-on-the-Main. 

The  most  significant  of  these  addresses  were  the  memorial 
from  the  recently  formed  Reform  Association  of  Berlin  and 
the  address  signed  by  168  Jews  of  Breslau.  These  ought 
not  to  be  dismissed  with  a  mere  mention.  The  Berlin 
society  in  its  famous  "Appeal"  had  declared  for  the  con- 


264  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

vening  of  a  synod  that  was  to  be  the  authoritative  Jewish 
body  and  was  to  decide  upon  moot  questions.  When  the 
necessity  of  instituting  a  public  service  became  plain,  the 
question  arose  whether  steps  towards  this  should  be  taken 
before  or  after  calling  the  synod.  The  "synodists"  held 
that  no  Prayer-Book  could  be  written  unless  there  was  a 
definite  declaration  of  faith  whereon  it  would  be  based,  and 
hence  the  synod  must  be  convened  first  to  formulate  this 
creed;  however,  the  need  for  a  service  was  so  great  that 
steps  were  taken  to  institute  it  at  once.  Yet  the  sentiment 
for  the  endorsement  of  an  authorized  gathering  was  so 
strong  that  it  was  determined  to  send  a  deputation  to  the 
rabbinical  conference,  which,  though  not  of  a  definitely 
authoritative  nature,  had  something  of  this  character.  To 
enter  into  relationship  with  the  conference  partook  of  the 
nature  of  listening  to  authoritative  voices  without  sacrific- 
ing autonomy.  The  object  of  the  address  to  the  Confer- 
ence was  to  pave  the  way  for  the  synod ;  the  Berlin  congre- 
gation represented  the  laity,  the  conference  represented  the 
rabbinate;  these  two  were  the  component  parts  of  the  fu- 
ture synod.  Dr.  S.  Stern,  the  most  prominent  member  of 
the  Berlin  congregation,  had  said,  in  urging  the  address  to 
the  Conference,  "If  we  recognize  the  necessity  of  the  co- 
operation of  both  elements  for  reform  in  Judaism  and  desire 
that  both  join  in  the  future  synod,  a  preliminary  agree- 
ment must  take  place  now. ' ' 1 

It  was  decided  to  send  a  deputation  consisting  of  Stern, 
Rebenstein  and  Simion,  who  were  to  read  the  address  to 
the  conference,  but  this  was  to  be  understood  to  be  merely 
an  act  of  courtesy  and  nothing  more. 

At  the  first  session  of  the  conference  this  deputation 
appeared  and  presented  the  memorial  from  the  congrega- 
tion. This  memorial  is  of  importance  because  it  marks  the 
first  public  activity  of  the  Berlin  Society  since  its  definite 

Proceedings  of  the  Berlin  Eeform  Congregation  of  June  18,  1845, 
quoted  by  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  133. 


THE    EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          265 

organization  two  months  previously  in  the  month  of  May. 
The  memorialists  set  forth  the  purpose  of  their  society 
thus:  "We  have  undertaken  the  great  task  of  breaking 
through  the  standstill  which  has  barred  the  development 
of  Judaism  for  centuries  and  has  required  of  us  the  un- 
changed retention  of  forms  which  conflicted  more  and  more 
with  our  thoughts  and  sentiments,  and  with  the  needs  of 
our  advanced  life.     We  have  united  for  the  carrying  out 
of  the  following  purpose:   to  redeem  Judaism,  our  most 
precious  heritage,  from  all  antiquated  forms,  not  only  for 
the  benefit  of  ourselves  or  of  special  classes,  but  of  all  its 
confessors,  and  to  preserve  its  eternal  truth  in  and  through 
a  form  suited  to  our  age  in  order  that  it  may  once  again 
permeate  our  life  with  the  power  of  its  divine  essence.     We 
have  not  failed  to  recognize  the  difficulty  of  this  great  un- 
dertaking, but  that  which  forces  and  necessitates  us   to 
awaken  ourselves  and  our  co-religionists  out  of  the  state 
of  comfortable  ease  and  to  enter  upon  the  severe  struggle 
with  indifference  on  the  one  hand  and  millennium-old  preju- 
dice on  the  other,  is  the  consciousness  that  we  should  pub- 
licly confess  that  which  we  have  recognized  as  the  true  and 
the  right,  and  that  not  only  for  our  own  sake,  but  in  the 
name  of  Judaism,  we  must  make  possible  for  it  that  develop- 
ment which  has  been  denied  to  it  for  so  long  a  time.     We 
are  encouraged  to  undertake  this  difficult  task  because  we 
are  convinced  that  the  old  vital  force  has  not  died  out  of  nor 
been  weakened  in  Judaism,  and  that  the  need  we  feel  is 
not  an  isolated  phenomenon,  but  will  come  to  the  fore  with 
equal  force  among  thousands  of  our  cultured  and  advanced 
co-religionists  as  soon  as  the  initiative  is  taken.     But  we 
are  encouraged  most  of  all  by  our  faith  in  the  progressive 
consciousness  of  the  age — which  urges  us  on  to  freedom  of 
thought  and  lends  the  strongest  support  to  all  efforts  which 
are  directed  towards  bringing  pristine  and  pure  truth  to 
light  even  though  this  is  obscured  by  dense  millennium-old 
fogs." 


266  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  memorial  lays  stress  upon  the  necessity  for  rabbis 
and  laymen  to  work  together  in  the  cause ;  theirs  is  a  lay 
movement,  it  has  gone  forth  from  the  people;  the  confer- 
ence is  a  rabbinical  movement ;  neither  alone  is  representa- 
tion, however;  people  and  rabbis  must  join  to  form  an 
authoritative  body,  viz.,  a  synod. 

The  memorial  concludes  by  expressing  the  hope  that  the 
conference  will  give  expression  to  its  official  recognition  of 
the  work  and  purpose  of  the  Reform  Association,  which 
aims,  not  at  the  destruction  of  Judaism,  but  its  strength- 
ening and  preservation. 

The  conference  answered  by  declaring  that  its  members 
recognize  that  the  Reform  Association  owes  its  existence  to 
the  religious  need  to  reconcile  modern  life  with  Judaism, 
and  that  it  was  gratifying  to  know  that  this  conviction  of 
the  need  of  reform  in  Judaism  was  felt  in  the  congregations 
as  well  as  by  the  rabbis.  Gladly  would  they  work  hand  in 
hand  with  the  Reform  Association  if  the  latter  were  guided 
by  the  same  principles  as  were  considered  necessary  by  the 
conference  for  true  reform  in  Judaism.  They  would  watch 
with  interest  the  steps  taken  by  the  Reform  Association 
toward  the  formation  of  a  synod. 

The  address  issued  to  the  Conference  from  Breslau  con- 
tained a  strong  presentation  of  the  religious  state  of  many 
Jews,  and  of  the  confusions  arising  from  the  conflicts  be- 
tween the  demands  of  life  and  the  observance  of  the  tradi- 
tional laws ;  particular  attention  is  called  to  the  need  of  a 
reform  of  the  liturgy  and  to  the  necessity  of  a  solution  of 
the  difficulties  connected  with  Sabbath  observance.  "The 
great  majority  of  the  Jews,  even  those  who  pose  as  the 
zealous  watchmen  of  orthodoxy,  have  really  no  holidays. 
The  children  attend  school  on  the  Sabbath,  the  apprentice 
must  work  on  this  day  as  on  every  other  at  his  trade  or  in 
business,  and  when  the  young  man  has  finally  become  his 
own  master,  he  will  scarcely  be  inclined  to  observe  a  day 
which  he  has  not  been  accustomed  to  observe  from  child- 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          267 

hood,  even  though  able  to  do  so ;  but  how  few  are  there  in 
our  time  who  can  observe  this  day  without  great  danger  of 
ruin!" 

Attention  was  called  also  to  the  need  of  a  reform  of  the 
dietary  laws.  The  writers  proceeded  to  say  that  they  had 
called  the  attention  of  the  Conference  to  these  things  be- 
cause they  felt  that  the  leaders  of  the  people  should  know 
the  state  of  affairs  among  the  people ;  it  were  cowardice  to 
conceal  it,  and  they  hoped  that  the  rabbis  would  deal 
courageously  with  these  pressing  questions  of  the  time  and 
find  the  means  of  so  interpreting  Judaism  as  to  enable  the 
Jew  to  live  fully  and  freely  the  life  in  the  world  without 
becoming  false  or  untrue  to  his  faith. 

The  Conference  answered  by  saying  that  it  appreciated 
the  service  rendered  by  the  writers  of  the  address  in  stating 
thus  clearly  the  conflicts  between  official  Judaism  and 
practical  life;  but  the  Conference  must  move  slowly,  and 
could  not  solve  all  the  great  questions  of  the  time  in  a  trice. 
This  conference  had  taken  up  the  liturgy  and  considered  it 
thoroughly;  future  Conferences  would  undoubtedly  give 
earnest  attention  to  the  other  great  questions  which  the 
writers  touched. 

There  is  apparent  in  the  answers  of  the  Conference  to  the 
various  addresses  the  same  broad  spirit  and  wise  counsel 
as  characterized  the  discussions  and  deliberations.  The 
men  who  participated  in  this  conference  were  imbued 
thoroughly  with  the  serious  responsibility  of  the  Jewish 
religious  leader  in  that  era  of  upheaval.  With  but  two  or 
three  exceptions  they  were  not  drastic  in  their  suggestions 
and  methods,  but  desirous  of  reforming  gradually.  The 
discussions  evince  a  full  knowledge  of  the  past  develop- 
ment of  Judaism  and  a  thorough  grasp  of  present  condi- 
tions. Opinions  differed,  it  is  true,  as  to  the  length  that 
the  reforms  should  go,  but  the  spirit  that  ruled  the  con- 
ference was  that  reform  must  proceed  along  the  lines  of 
past  endeavor;  for  every  reform  that  was  suggested  some 


268  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

warrant  was  sought  from  Talmudic  authority.  The  sensa- 
tional withdrawal  of  Zacharias  Frankel  from  the  confer- 
ence after  the  third  day's  session  was  absolutely  inexcus- 
able therefore,  even  from  his  standpoint.  Frankel's  action 
was  the  focus  of  the  opposition  to  this  conference,  as  the 
protest  of  the  116  rabbis  had  been  to  the  Brunswick  Con- 
ference. As  stated  above1  Frankel  had  criticized  the 
Brunswick  Conference  very  sharply  and  severely,  and 
therefore  his  appearance  at  the  Frankfort  Conference  was 
gladly  welcomed,  for  he  had  been  the  only  rabbi  of  note 
with  reform  leanings  who  had  denounced  so  unsparingly 
the  first  Conference.  At  the  very  outset  he  had  taken  pains 
to  define  his  position  as  being  that  of  adherence  to  positive 
historical  Judaism;  this  phrase  was  grasped  at  eagerly  by 
the  opponents  of  the  reformers  as  the  club  wherewith  to  be- 
labor them,  notably  later  by  the  Breslau  school;  but,  as 
Stein,  the  President  of  the  Conference,  said  in  his  reply  to 
Frankel's  opening  speech,  this  phrase  defined  exactly  the 
reform  position;  the  reformers,  too,  built  on  positive  his- 
torical Judaism;  it  was  not  their  purpose  to  break  with 
the  Judaism  of  the  past,  but  to  develop  it  further.  Fran- 
kel gave  as  his  excuse  for  withdrawing  that  the  Conference 
should  not  have  voted  that  it  was  "advisable"  (rathsam) 
to  retain  the  Hebrew  in  the  service  but  absolutely  essential. 
This  resolution  had  been  passed  on  the  afternoon  of  July 
17,  which  was  the  last  meeting  that  Frankel  attended;  in 
the  issue  of  the  Oberpostamtszeitung  2  of  July  18  he  pub- 
lished a  statement  explanatory  of  his  withdrawal  from  the 
Conference.  At  the  morning  session  of  July  20  the  Presi- 
dent called  the  official  attention  of  the  Conference  to  this 
article  of  Frankel's,  and  read  also  an  answer3  which  had 

1  Supra,  221. 

2  This  was  republished  in  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX  (1845),  174-176,  and  in 
the  /.  N.  J.,  VI   (1845),  256;   also  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
ference, ProtoTcolle  und  ATftenstucTce  d.  zweiten  E.  V.,  86. 

'Published  originally  in  Frankfurter  Journal;  also  in  ProtoTcolle, 
90. 


THE    RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          269 

been  written  and  which  he  submitted  for  the  approval  of 
the  members.  After  citing  the  resolution  of  the  conference 
that  the  retention  of  the  Hebrew  was  only  advisable  and 
interpreting  this  action  of  the  conference  to  mean  that  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  rabbis  to  abolish  it  gradually,  Fran- 
kel  goes  on  to  say:  "I  dissent  from  such  a  resolution,  not 
only  because  of  a  difference  of  view,  but  also  because  of  a 
difference  of  tendency.  This  spirit  which  leaves  unnoticed 
so  many  weighty  elements  and  supplants  that  which  is  of 
weight  and  power  in  every  confession,  viz.,  the  historical 
element,  makes,  in  my  opinion,  not  for  the  preservation, 
but  the  destruction,  of  positive  historical  Judaism,  which 
I  had  explained  clearly  to  the  Conference  as  representing 
my  position.  This  spirit  must  invalidate  the  future  reso- 
lutions of  the  Conference  for  all  such  as  stand  on  the  plat- 
form of  positive  historical  Judaism,  because,  as  I  explained 
also  to  the  Conference,  it  depends  not  only  on  the  number 
of  votes  cast,  but  on  the  motive  for  voting,  and  only  he  who 
has  come  to  a  decision  himself  and  seeks  only  a  formal  en- 
dorsement can  find  an  apparent  comfort  in  a  general  vote. ' ' 

For  this  reason  he  must  not  only  protest  against  the  Con- 
ference, but  feels  it  necessary  to  declare  that  his  standpoint 
is  altogether  different  from  that  of  the  Conference ;  he  re- 
grets that  the  Conference,  instead  of  keeping  in  mind  the 
high  aim  of  securing  universal  confidence  and  thus  bring- 
ing about  a  compromise  between  opposing  elements,  had 
again  by  this  act  alienated  thousands.  He  had  come  to  the 
conference  with  the  purpose  of  reaching  an  understanding 
with  opposing  opinions,  and  with  the  hope  of  making  the 
Conference  the  reconciling  influence  and  establishing  it  as 
the  representative  Jewish  body,  but  this  action  of  the  Con- 
ference had  demonstrated  to  him  the  vanity  of  this  hope, 
and  therefore  he  felt  compelled  to  withdraw,  no  matter 
though  his  action  be  misinterpreted. 

The  Conference  answered  this  declaration  by  calling  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  vote  on  the  resolution  in  ques- 


270  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

tion  showed  that  thirteen  held  the  same  views  as  Frankel, 
while  the  majority  vote  was  only  fifteen,  and  three  had 
abstained  from  voting;  hence  Frankel  stood  by  no  means 
alone,  and  if  he  was  sincere  in  his  declaration  it  was  surely 
his  duty  to  continue  in  the  Conference.  The  Conference 
resents  the  implication  that  by  this  majority  vote  it 
abandoned  the  standpoint  of  positive  historical  Judaism, 
which  it  had  declared  with  loud  acclaim  the  day  before  to 
be  its  standpoint  no  less  than  it  was  that  of  Dr.  Frankel. 
The  vote  on  the  advisability  of  the  retention  of  the  Hebrew 
was  concerned  with  the  question  of  opinions,  not  of  ten- 
dencies. * '  The  positive  historical  standpoint  demands  devel- 
opment out  of  present  conditions,  not  a  haphazard  creation 
without  definite  pre-existing  material,  and  thus  our  prayers 
should  attach  themselves  to  the  existing  liturgy,  and  be 
developed  in  form  and  content  wherever  possible  from 
that  which  we  have  received  from  the  past.  The  Confer- 
ence can  grant  as  little  that  prayer  in  a  non-Hebrew  lan- 
guage implies  a  denial  of  the  historical  element  as  Dr. 
Frankel  on  his  part  will  admit  that  the  Talmudists  attacked 
positive  historical  Judaism  when  they  permitted  the  holiest 
of  our  prayers  to  be  uttered  in  Aramaic;  yes,  when  they 
allowed  the  whole  service,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  pas- 
sages, to  be  performed  in  a  non-Hebrew  language,  as  Dr. 
Frankel  admitted  this  when  he  voted  that  there  was  no 
legal  necessity  for  the  employment  of  Hebrew  as  the  lan- 
guage of  prayer.  The  Conference  believes  therefore  that 
Dr.  Frankel,  by  making  this  issue  the  cause  of  his  breaking 
with  the  Conference,  has  abandoned  not  so  much  the  Con- 
ference as  himself  and  the  consequences  of  his  own 
position. ' ' 

Some  members  of  the  Conference  desired  a  clause  to  be 
inserted  to  the  effect  that  Frankel  mistook  the  tendency  of 
the  Conference,  while  Geiger  held  that  the  only  way  to 
meet  such  arrogance  was  to  pass  it  by  in  silence ;  he  begged 
the  Conference  to  avoid  all  polemical  utterances  against 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          271 

Frankel,  who,  being  absent,  was  unable  to  defend  himself. 

Frankel  answered  this  reply  of  the  Conference  in  a  let- 
ter dated  Mayence,  July  22  ;*  he  reiterated  his  former 
statements,  but  did  not  succeed  in  defending  his  position 
strongly. 

To  offset,  in  all  likelihood,  the  two  addresses  of  com- 
mendation sent  to  the  Conference  from  Breslau,  the  one  by 
the  officials  of  the  Congregation  2  and  the  other  by  one  hun- 
dred and  sixty-eight  private  individuals,  sympathizers 
with  Frankel  sent  him  an  address  applauding  his  action; 
Graetz,  later  the  historian  of  the  Jews,  but  at  that  time  a 
rabbinical  candidate,  was  particularly  active  in  the  matter  ;3 
this  demonstration  on  the  part  of  the  orthodox  element  in 
Breslau  was  inspired  by  opposition  to  Geiger.  The  ortho- 
dox party  of  Stettin  and  Frankfort  also  memorialized 
Frankel  for  his  stand  in  the  matter.  * 

L.  Schott,  Rabbi  of  Randegg,  followed  the  lead  of 
Frankel  and  withdrew  from  the  Conference.  Frankel  be- 
came from  now  on  the  recognized  leader  of  the  conserva- 
tives whose  motto  was  sauve  qui  peut;  not  principle  but 
accommodation  guided  this  party;  the  Breslau  rabbinical 
seminary  founded  in  1855,  of  which  Frankel  became  the 
head,  supplied  the  leaders  for  this  party.  5 

'Kepublished  I.  N.  J.  (1845),  320. 

2  Protolcolle,  235. 

9  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX  (1845),  595. 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX  (1845),  624.  J.  N.  J.,  331,  339.  See,  however, 
Philippson's  explanation  of  the  incident,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  519.  See 
also  A.  Adler  ' '  Beleuchtung  der  Gegenerklarung  das  Herrn  Ober- 
rabbiners,  Dr.  Z.  Frankel,  in  No.  203  der  Frankfurter  Oberpostamt- 
zeitung,"  I.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  313,  321. 

5  The  bitterest  denunciations  and  criticisms  of  the  Frankfort  con- 
ference appeared  in  the  columns  of  the  Orient;  as  an  example  it 
suffices  to  refer  to  the  nj'p  or  Dirge  in  Hebrew  by  an  anonymous 
poet  wherein  the  rabbis  assembled  at  Frankfort  are  called  "de- 
stroyers and  miners."  As  a  further  instance  of  the  intensity  of 
feeling  aroused  in  the  opposition  by  these  conferences,  the  words  of 
the  editor  of  the  English  publication  The  Voice  of  Jacob,  IV,  219, 


272  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  Frankfort  Conference  will  always  be  notable  in  the 
annals  of  Keform  Judaism  for  the  remarkable  discussions 
on  the  liturgy;  the  intent  and  purpose  of  reform  were 
grasped  firmly  by  the  leaders  assembled  there  and  the  uni- 
versal elements  in  Judaism  received  expression  in  lofty 
strains  time  and  again ;  the  members  of  the  Conference  did 
not  attempt  the  impossible ;  they  had  practical  problems  to 
solve  and  did  so  with  the  needs  of  their  generation  con- 
stantly in  view ; 1  they  were  thoroughly  awake  to  the  situa- 
tion, and  were  justified  in  hoping  that,  as  the  president 
stated  in  his  closing  remarks,  * '  a  new  era  of  active  partici- 
pation in  our  ancestral  faith  here  and  elsewhere  would  date 
from  the  second  rabbinical  conference  held  at  Frankfort. ' ' 

(c)  The  Breslau  Conference 

The  third  rabbinical  Conference  met  at  Breslau,  July 
13-24,  1846.  The  very  fact  that  it  was  convened  in  this 
East-Prussian  city  near  the  Silesian  border  was  equivalent 
to  throwing  down  the  gauntlet  to  the  opposition  to  the 

written  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Frankfort  conference,  may  be 
cited:  "Had  but  a  small  section  of  the  116  rabbis  who  subscribed 
the  Manifesto  or  protest  (against  the  Brunswick  conference)  con- 
descended to  assemble,  out-reason  and  out-vote  the  23  rabbis  whose 
dicta  they  had  at  last  occasion  so  solemnly  to  repudiate,  there  might 
have  been  less  of  heresy  at  this  day  raging  among  the  people.  That 
Manifesto  has  no  doubt  served  as  a  standard  round  which  to  rally 
the  faithful,  together  with  those  predisposed  to  condemn  the  hetero- 
dox party;  but  it  may  reasonably  be  doubted  whether  its  dry  de- 
nunciations have  convinced  one  man  of  his  errors  or  recovered  one 
stray  sheep  to  the  fold.  The  right  is  with  us;  the  truth  is  ours;  and 
we  thank  God  at  last  to  see  a  growing  disposition  on  the  part  of  our 
proper  leaders  to  rouse  themselves  from  their  lethargy,  to  buckle  on 
their  armor,  and  to  do  battle  in  a  holy  cause  in  which  victory  is 
assured. ' ' 

1  Geiger,    ' '  Vortrage    iiber    die    Verhandlungen    der    Kabbinerver- 
sammlung,"  I.  N.  J.,  VI,  345-7. 

2  The  effect  of  this  conference  in  awakening  interest  in  Judaism 
among  the  indifferent  was  felt  throughout  Germany,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X, 
25. 


THE  EABBINICAL   CONFEKENCES,   1844-1846          273 

Conferences,  much  of  which  had  emanated  from  that  sec- 
tion. This  opposition  was  now  clearly  denned.  There  was 
in  the  first  place,  as  was  natural,  the  rigidly  orthodox 
party  whose  opposition  had  not  lessened  since  the  days  of 
the  famous  protest  of  the  116  rabbis  against  the  Brunswick 
Conference ;  then  there  was  the  so-called  positive  historical 
school,  led  by  Frankel,  whose  sensational  exit  from  the 
Frankfort  Conference  had  aroused  such  notice  the  pre- 
ceding year ;  and  thirdly,  the  radicals  who  were  dissatisfied 
because  the  Frankfort  Conference  had  not  declared  against 
and  abolished  the  whole  ceremonial  and  traditional  system.1 

This  combined  opposition  may  have  been  the  reason  why 
a  smaller  number  assembled  at  Breslau  than  at  Frankfort. 
In  order  to  cripple  the  Conference,  too,  Frankel  had  issued 
a  call  for  an  assembly  of  theologians  to  be  held  at  Dresden, 
October  20,  1846,  which  meeting,  however,  never  took  place. 

All  this  opposition,  however,  merely  served  to  direct 
even  more  attention  to  this  third  Conference  than  to  its  two 
predecessors,  if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  notably  as  it 
was  known  that  the  deliberations  were  to  be  devoted  pri- 
marily and  chiefly  to  the  all-absorbing  Sabbath  question. 
There  were  present  at  this  Conference :  A.  Adler,  Worms ; 
S.  Adler,  Alzey ;  J.  Auerbach,  Frankf ort-on-the-Main ;  Ben 
Israel,  Coblentz;  D.  Einhorn,  Birkenfeld;  S.  Formstecher. 
Offenbach;  A.  Geiger,  Breslau;  Goldstein,  Waren;  J. 
Gosen,  Marburg;  L.  Giildenstein,  Buchau;  L.  Herzfeld, 
Brunswick;  S.  Herxheimer,  Bernburg;  M.  Hess,  Stadt- 
Lengsfeld;  S.  Holdheim,  Schwerin;  J.  Jolowicz,  Coslin;  J. 
Kahn,  Trier;  M.  Levy,  Breslau;  L.  Lovy,  Miinsterberg; 
J.'Lowengard,  Lehren-Steinf els ;  Pick,  Teplitz;  L.  Philipp- 
son,  Magdeburg;  G.  Salomon,  Hamburg;  L.  Sobernheim, 
Bingen;  L.  Stein,  Frankf  ort-on-the-Main ;  H.  Wagner, 
Mannheim;  B.  Wechsler,  Oldenburg. 


*See  Geiger   Vorlaufiger  Bericht  ub&r  die  Thdtiglceit  der  dritten 
Versammhing  deutscher  Babbiner.     Breslau,  1846. 
18 


274      THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Geiger  was  elected  president;  Stein,  vice-president;  and 
A.  Adler  and  J.  Auerbach,  secretaries. 

In  his  opening  address  as  chairman  of  the  Executive 
Committee  Geiger  referred  to  the  increasing  agitations  in 
the  Jewish  communities  since  last  they  met,  the  many  signs 
of  re-awakened  life  on  the  one  hand  and  the  disturbances 
of  the  peace  on  the  other;  therefore,  many  a  rabbi  had 
been  undoubtedly  tempted  to  withdraw  from  active  par- 
ticipation in  the  conflicts  of  the  time  lest  he  be  misunder- 
stood and  antagonized.  However,  they  who  had  assembled 
again  spurned  such  cowardly  retreat  and  felt  in  duty  bound 
to  search  out  the  remedies  for  the  religious  distemper  in 
Jewry.  He  defined  the  purpose  of  the  Conference— yes, 
of  true  reform— finely  when  he  said: 

"The  conditions  are  difficult,  and  confusion  in  religious 
affairs  appears  to  be  on  the  increase;  despite  this  you  are 
in  this  Conference  again  making  the  courageous  attempt 
to  place  the  pure  eternal  content  of  Judaism  in  a  form 
suited  to  the  present  and  thus  to  breathe  into  it  a  new  and 
powerful  spirit.  You  wish  to  convince,  to  lead  to  the  truth, 
not  to  forge  bonds  and  fetters ;  you  know  full  well  that  you 
do  not  appear  here  as  guardians  of  consciences,  that  you 
have  no  sovereign  power  over  the  inalienable  religious 
freedom  of  congregations  and  individuals;  nay,  you  would 
repudiate  such  power  were  it  to  be  offered  you,  for  true 
religion  can  prosper  and  grow  only  in  the  atmosphere  of 
freedom  of  conviction.  Not,  then,  as  spiritual  despots 
are  we  assembled,  but  as  men,  who,  familiar  with  the 
sources  and  history  of  Judaism,  and  anxious  for  its  living 
preservation,  both  by  our  inner  as  well  as  our  outer  calling, 
are  fitted  by  constant  attention  to  passing  occurrences  and 
by  experiences  in  office,  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
needs  and  to  propose  remedies  to  the  congregations  with 
whom  lies  the  final  decision.  Not  the  cleric  stands  over 
against  the  layman  (a  distinction  foreign  to  Judaism),  but 
the  knower  of  Judaism,  the  man  who  has  made  it  his  task 


THE   KABBINICAL   CONFEEENCES,   1844-1846          275 

to  follow  up  the  movements  of  history  and  to  foster  the 
religious  life;  such  a  one  seeks  to  exchange  opinions  and 
experiences  with  his  colleagues  and  thereupon  to  recommend 
to  his  congregation  the  results  of  such  deliberation  and 
consultation.  Our  mission  is  to  strengthen  the  hold  of 
truth  and  piety,  and  in  such  instances  where  these  have 
become  stunted  we  must  seek  to  burst  the  crust  which  has 
formed  about  them.  This  is  a  nm5  DJD  5y  .TPDD,  a  tear- 
ing down  in  order  to  plant;  we  shall  foster  the  living  and 
the  virile;  may  the  creeper  which  sucks  sap  and  strength 
from  the  tree  be  uprooted. " 

The  chief  interest  in  the  Breslau  Conference  centers 
about  the  Sabbath  discussions.  Possibly  nowhere  was  the 
conflict  between  the  commands  of  rabbinical  Judaism  and 
the  demands  of  life  so  apparent  as  in  the  matter  of  Sab- 
bath observance.  The  casuistry  of  Talmudical  dialectics 
ran  riot  in  this  field.  Thirty-nine  chief  categories  (DUN  B"5) 
were  enumerated  in  the  Mishnah,  i.  e.,  important  labors 
that  were  forbidden  and  from  these  were  derived  the 
innumerable  nrtfin  or  minor  tasks  that  were  prohibited 
likewise.  Then  there  were  the  many  DM"D  (fences)  D'JPUO 
(customs)  and  rmpn  (enactments)  which  the  Talmudists 
framed  in  their  anxiety  to  guard  the  completeness  of  the 
Sabbath  rest.  The  fiction  of  the  nfpy  demonstrated  most 
forcibly  the  lengths  to  which  casuistry  was  driven  to  main- 
tain a  forced  system  and  the  refinement  of  dialectic  spec- 
ulation has  surely  never  gone  further  than  in  the  matter 
of  nut?.  As  long  as  the  Jews  lived  in  isolated  communities 
such  an  observance  of  the  Sabbath  was  quite  possible,  but 
when  they  began  to  participate  in  the  life  of  the  larger 
world,  the  collisions  between  that  life  with  its  changed  in- 
dustrial economic  and  social  conditions  and  the  hundred 
and  one  prohibitions  wherewith  the  Talmud  had  hedged 
about  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  were  constant.  It  was 
not  long  before  the  question  of  Sabbath  observance  became 
a  burning  issue  in  Jewish  life;  the  inadequacy  of  Talmud- 


276  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ism  and  rabbinism  to  cope  with,  the  situation  was  more 
painfully  apparent  here  than  anywhere  else.  To  observe 
the  Sabbath  as  the  Talmud  and  the  codes  demanded  was 
simply  out  of  the  question.  Many  without  scruple  disre- 
garded all  the  traditional  enactments  touching  Sabbath 
observance,  but  there  were  thousands  who  were  troubled 
sincerely;  the  Sabbath  had  always  been  one  of  the  basic 
institutions  of  Judaism;  they  desired  to  observe  it;  but 
life  was  pressing  on  every  side;  strict  Sabbath  observ- 
ance as  required  by  the  code,  and  life's  demands  were 
apparently  incompatible.  Was  there  any  method  of  recon- 
ciliation ?  could  the  Sabbath  be  preserved  and  the  demands 
of  life  be  satisfied  at  the  same  time?  Here,  if  anywhere, 
the  people  looked  for  help  and  guidance  to  their  religious 
leaders. 

These  leaders  appreciated  the  seriousness  of  the  problem 
which  soon  assumed  a  leading  place  among  the  practical 
difficulties  that  assailed  Judaism  in  the  new  era,  and  be- 
cause the  most  of  them  were  unable  to  find  any  effective 
solution  they  hesitated  to  grapple  with  it.  However,  it 
was  too  insistent  and  too  important  to  be  disregarded  *  and 
notably  at  gatherings  where  vital  questions  of  Jewish 
thought  and  practice  were  the  topics  of  the  hour.  Hence, 
Samuel  Hirsch  proposed  at  the  first  conference  that  the 
collision  between  life  and  doctrine  be  removed  by  the 
abolition  or  alleviation  of  numerous  Sabbath  and  dietary 

1  Geiger,  Die   drltte   Versammlung   deutscher  Rabbiner,   ein   Vor- 
laufiges  Wort  zur  Verstandigung,  Breslau,  1846,  p.  7. 

"This  question  must  be  decided  if  Judaism  is  to  exist  on  as  a 
lasting  influence  and  it  will  be  decided  if  it  is  kept  constantly  on  the 
tapis;  it  must  be  decided  some  one  way  or  another  by  a  ripe  resolu- 
tion of  the  community.  One  of  the  most  essential  institutions  of 
Judaism  is  the  day  of  consecration  and  rest,  and  with  this  Judaism 
itself  must  be  rescued  from  the  unspeakable  confusion  and  haziness 
in  whose  maw  the  whole  religious  life  is  in.  danger  of  being  swal- 
lowed; rescue  from  this  confusion  will  ensue  only  when  it  is  exposed 
vividly  in  its  imperfection  and  emptiness." 


THE  EABBINICAL  CONFEKENCE,  1844-1846  277 

laws. *  This  was  at  the  closing  session  of  the  Conference, 
but  the  subject  was  too  difficult  and  of  too  great  moment 
to  be  taken  up  at  so  late  an  hour.  It  was  therefore  re- 
solved to  refer  it  to  a  commission  to  report  at  the  follow- 
ing Conference.  This  Commission  consisting  of  Geiger, 
A.  Adler,  S.  Adler,  Wechsler  and  Kahn  reported  at  the 
Frankfort  Conference,  but  so  much  of  the  time  of  that 
Conference  had  been  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  report 
of  the  Commission  on  the  liturgy  that  it  was  considered 
advisable  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the 
Sabbath  Com  mission  till  the  next  Conference,  when  it  was 
to  be  made  the  first  order  of  business.  The  report  of  the 
Commission  was  not  unanimous;  a  majority — Geiger,  A. 
Adler,  and  Wechsler— signed  the  report  but  the  two  other 
members,  S.  Adler  and  Kahn,  dissented.  The  majority  re- 
port was  ordered  to  be  printed  and  distributed  to  the 
members  of  the  Conference  so  as  to  give  them  ample  time 
to  study  it  during  the  intervening  year.  The  majority  re- 
port -  opened  with  a  brief  statement  of  what  constituted 
the  essentiality  of  the  Sabbath  idea ;  in  the  opinion  of  the 
majority  of  the  Commission  "the  Biblical  idea  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  the  celebration  of  the  day ;  it  is  a  nn^,  a  cessation 
from  the  work  which  marks  the  other  days  of  the  week, 
different  however  from  the  rest  which  is  equivalent  to 
complete  idleness.  The  celebration  is  a  consecration  of  the 
day  O^y  ,l&np^  /intsnp'n)  and  this  consecration  implies  an 
abstention  from  the  daily  professional  and  business  pur- 
suits. While  the  prophets  place  the  consecration  (Weihe) 
of  the  day  in  the  foreground,  the  legislative  portion  of  the 
Bible  lays  stress  on  the  prohibition  against  work  (nDKfo) 
and  names  it  m&P  rest,  the  interruption  of  the  daily  toil." 
In  the  Bible,  rest  from  work  was  commanded  in  order  to 
make  possible  the  consecration  of  the  self  on  that  day.  In 
the  later  outworking  of  the  Sabbath  conception  in  Mishnah 

*Protolcolle   der  ersten  Edb'binerversamm.lung ,   87.     Supra,  219. 
*Proto1colle  der  zweiten  Rabbinerversammlung,  348-357. 


278  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

and  Talmud  the  greatest  stress  was  laid  on  the  necessity 
of  rest.  Complete  absolute  rest  was  taken  to  be  the  essen- 
tial point  in  Sabbath  observance;  hence  the  scrupulosity 
of  Talmudic  legislation  on  this  point  and  the  prohibition 
of  numberless  activities  on  the  ground  that,  although 
harmless  in  themselves,  they  might  lead  to  an  infraction  of 
the  commands  touching  the  Sabbath. 1 

The  report  then  proceeds  to  lay  down  the  general  prin- 
ciple which  the  signers  say  they  believe  guided  the  Con- 
ference in  its  deliberations,  viz.,  that  they  must  adopt  the 
Biblical  point  of  view  and  that  individual  instances  of 
Biblical  legislation  may  be  modified  only  in  case  circum- 
stances that  gave  rise  to  them  have  been  changed,  but  that 
Talmudism  is  only  a  stadium  in  the  historical  development 
of  Judaism,  and  that  therefore  the  Talmudical  interpreta- 
tion can  lay  claim  to  consideration  only  when  harmonizing 
with  the  demands  of  life.  "  Applying  this  principle  to 
the  case  in  hand,  we  must  return  to  the  Biblical  idea  of  the 
Sabbath,  which,  as  in  the  case  with  divine  truth  in  gen- 
eral, has  eternal  validity,  while  the  Talmudic  conception 
whenever  it  is  not  the  development  of  the  Biblical  idea,  but 
contradicts  it  as  well  as  our  own  religious  consciousness, 
can  lay  no  claim  to  consideration.  We  must  then  re- 
emphasize  the  Biblical  idea  that  the  Sabbath  is  a  day  of 
consecration  which  is  sanctified  through  our  sanctifying 
ourselves;  a  day  the  distinctiveness  of  which  is  to  be 
brought  forcibly  home  to  us  by  our  ceasing  from  our  daily 
toil  and  our  special  tasks,  and  giving  ourselves  to  contem- 
plation on  the  divine  purpose  of  our  existence  as  indicated 
by  Jewish  teaching.  Hence,  no  task  should  be  forbidden 
which  conduces  towards  recreation  and  spiritual  elevation 
and  which  serves  to  lift  us  out  of  our  circumscribed  environ- 

1  As  will  be  seen  later  on,  this  constituted  possibly  the  sharpest 
point  of  distinction  in  the  views  of  the  members  of  the  conference, 
viz.,  whether  the  essential  idea  of  the  Sabbath  is  rest  (Euhe)  or  con- 
secration (WeQie). 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          279 

ment  and  to  arouse  in  us  thoughts  of  a  higher  nature. 
The  detailed  enumeration  of  prohibited  tasks  in  the  Tal- 
mud is  characteristic  rather  of  juridical  method  than  of 
true  religious  striving.  The  all-important  consideration 
in  this  matter  of  prohibited  activity  is  whether  such  activ- 
ity interferes  with  or  furthers  Sabbath  consecration. 

'  '  Since,  then,  rest  is  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  only  a  means 
towards  a  higher  end,  viz.,  the  consecration  of  the  day, 
and  since  in  our  time  that  consecration  expresses  itself 
through  divine  service,  all  such  activities  as  are  necessary 
for  the  furtherance  of  that  service  must  be  permitted." 

The  Commission  recommended  the  following  definite 
program  : 

1.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  the  members  con- 
sider it  one  of  their  most  important  duties  to  work  towards 
the  restoration  of  a  worthy  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 

2.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  all  such  activity  as 
is  part  and  parcel  of  the  daily  business  or  professional 
vocation  is  forbidden,  while  any  activity  that  makes  for 
recreation  or  spiritual  elevation,  particularly  if  it  tends  to 
arouse  a  religious  mood,  not  only  does  not  harm  Sabbath 
observance,  but  furthers  it. 

3.  That  the   Conference  declare  that   any  task  which 
conduces  towards  a  dignified  and  uplifting  public  divine 
service,  or  which  makes  it  possible  for  the  individual  to 
participate  in  an  edifying  service,  may  be  performed  also 
by  a  Jew.     Of  such  is  particularly  the  performance  of 
music  in  the  Sabbath  both  at  home  and  in  the  synagogue; 
walking  beyond   the  so-called   Sabbath   boundary,   riding 
and  traveling  if  the  purpose  be  not  the   transaction  of 
business,  but  the  attendance  at  divine  service  or  some  sim- 
ilar  high   aim.     The   Conference   declares    the   fiction    of 

1  as  inadmissible  if  for  industrial  purposes  or 


1  No  one  was  permitted  to  go  further  than  two  thousand  cubits 
in  one  direction  from  his  dwelling  on  the  Sabbath  ;  by  the  casuistical 
provision  called  Erube  T'chumin,  "  combination  of  Sabbath-day 


280  THE  BEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

as  unnecessary  if  for  religious  purposes;  it  declares  the 
prohibition  to  carry  things,  in  as  far  as  this  is  not  done  for 
business  purposes,  hence  also  the  fiction  of  nran  ^wy1 
as  abolished. 

4.  That  the  Conference  declares  that  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  may  not  ignore  considerations  for  the  preser- 
vation of  life  and  the  temporal  weliare ;  in  cases  where  life 
is  threatened  or  is  in  danger  any  deed  to  avert  this  is  per- 
mitted—yes, commanded;  in  cases  where  the  livelihood  is 
at  stake  non-Jews  may  be  employed,  and  if  it  should  happen 
that  the  assistance  of  Jews  is  absolutely  necessary  in  such 
instances,  the  Sabbath  may  be  suspended  by  them  excep- 
tionally. 

5.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  participation  in 
the  welfare  of  the   State  is  so  exalted  a  duty  that  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  must  yield  to  this  in  cases  of 
collision.     It  declares,  therefore,  that  the  soldier  is  absolved 
from  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  if  military  discipline 
demands  this;  it  declares  that  the  civil  official  must  per- 
form the  duties  of  his  office  on  the  Sabbath  if  fealty  to  the 
State  requires  it,  provided  that  he   aims  to  restore  the 
sacredness  of  the  Sabbath  in  some  other  way,  namely,  in 
his  home. 

journeys, "  this  distance  was  extended  two  thousand  cubits.  By  this 
provision  some  article  could  be  placed  on  Friday  at  the  Sabbath 
boundary,  which  was  thus  constituted  a  new  dwelling  point  whence 
to  measure  a  further  two  thousand  cubits. 

1  According  to  the  rabbinical  law,  nothing  was  permitted  to  be 
carried  from  one  house  to  another  on  the  Sabbath  day;  this  pro- 
hibition, too,  was  evaded  by  a  casuistical  provision  entitled  Erube 
Chatzerot,  "combination  among  inhabitants  of  courts."  According 
to  this  the  householders  in  a  court  or  district  were  enabled  to  consider 
their  habitations  as  a  single  dwelling,  and  thus  carry  things  from 
house  to  house  without  breaking  the  Sabbath  law.  Both  these  pro- 
visions are  instances  of  the  accommodation  of  the  rabbinical  enact- 
ments to  the  needs  of  life,  and  are  evidence  of  the  extreme  lengths  to 
which  casuistry  went  for  the  ostensible  preservation  of  the  integrity 
of  the  rabbinical  provisions. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFEBENCES,   1844-1846          281 

S.  Adler,  a  member  of  the  Commission,  declared  him- 
self entirely  at  variance  with  the  majority  in  their  concep- 
tion of  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Sabbath,  and  Joseph 
Kahn,  another  member,  stated  his  disapproval  of  some  of 
the  recommendations. 

As  stated,  the  consideration  of  this  report  was  deferred 
to  the  following  Conference.  The  amended  report  of  the 
Commission  was  presented  at  the  first  session  of  the  Bres- 
lau  Conference.  The  debate  began  on  the  morning  of  the 
second  day  of  the  session  and  continued  at  intervals  morn- 
ing and  afternoon  for  nine  days ;  every  member  of  the  Con- 
ference expressed  himself  at  greater  or  less  length;  I  shall 
attempt  to  emphasize  the  more  important  points  elucidated 
during  the  debate. 

In  bringing  the  subject  before  the  Conference  Geiger, 
the  chairman,  stated  that  upon  further  deliberation  the 
majority  of  the  Commission  had  determined  upon  some 
modifications  in  the  recommendations  submitted  at  the  pre- 
ceding Conference.  These  modifications  arose  from  the 
fact  that  while  in  the  first  report  the  rest  through  which 
the  consecration  of  the  day  was  made  possible  was  con- 
ceived to  be  only  the  cessation  from  daily  toil,  the  Com- 
mission regarded  the  abstention  from  all  activity  requiring 
exertion  just  as  necessary  if  the  Jewish  conception  of  the 
Sabbath  is  to  be  realized  and  the  true  consecration  of  the 
day  to  be  achieved.  With  this  in  view  the  Commission  had 
so  changed  the  recommendations  as  to  read  as  follows : 

1.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  attention  must  be 
directed  to  arousing  among  the  people  an  ever  livelier 
consciousness  of  the  holiness  of  the  Sabbath  through  the 
means  of  a  lofty  divine  service,  and  that  it  is  necessary  for 
the  proper  consecration  of  the  day  to  abstain  from  all  labor 
whether  it  be  in  the  nature  of  the  daily  occupation  or 
whether  it  be  an  occasional  task  requiring  exertion ;  on  the 
other  hand  any  activity  which  is  not  for  gain  and  does  not 
require  exertion  is  permitted. 


282  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

2.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  the  celebration  of 
the  Sabbath  by  a  worthy  service  is  of  such  supreme  im- 
portance that  no  activity,  however  much  exertion  it  may 
require,  is  prohibited  if  necessary  for  this  purpose;  hence, 
any  task  which  conduces  towards  dignifying  the  service  or 
makes  it  possible  for  the  individual  to  participate  in  an 
edifying  service  may  be  undertaken  also  by  a  Jew. 

3.  That  the  Conference  declare  that  any  and  everything 
is  permitted,  nay,  commanded  to  be  done,  when  necessary 
to  avert  danger  to  life. 

4.  The  same  as  the  fifth  paragraph  in  the  former  re- 
port. 

The  majority  of  the  Commission,  whose  views  the  report 
reflected,  believing  that  consecration  is  the  essential  factor 
of  the  Sabbath,  naturally  laid  greatest  stress  on  the  matter 
of  divine  service.  They  felt  that  if  the  Jew  could  be 
attracted  to  the  house  of  worship,  this  would  give  the 
Sabbath  that  unique  place  among  the  days  of  the  week 
which  it  was  intended  to  have  in  Jewish  life;  by  placing 
greater  stress  upon  the  consecration  than  upon  the  rest- 
idea,  they  cut  themselves  loose  from  the  extravagances  of 
casuistry  into  which  the  anxiety  of  having  the  people  ab- 
stain from  any  and  everything  that  even  the  most  refined 
ingenuity  might  define  as  work  had  led  the  Talmudical 
doctors.  The  Commission  itself  felt  that  the  report  was 
inadequate  and  was  at  best  only  the  firing  of  the  first  gun 
in  a  long  campaign,  as  Geiger  stated,  when  as  President  of 
the  Conference,  he  made  the  opening  remarks  in  bringing 
the  subject  before  the  body.  " Sabbath  and  holidays,"  said 
he,  "are  the  bone  and  sinew  of  Jewish  religious  life;  our 
aim  must  be  to  restore  the  sanctity  of  these  days  for  con- 
gregation and  individual;  this  purpose  appears  in  both  re- 
ports of  the  Commission.  The  matter  is  extremely  diffi- 
cult, for  here  if  anywhere  a  great  conflict  is  apparent  be- 
tween doctrine  and  life.  Lamentations  avail  not.  We 
must  face  conditions  as  they  are.  Even  if  we  do  not  sue- 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFEKENCES,   1844-1846          283 

ceed  entirely  in  reaching  a  solution  let  us  begin  bravely; 
later  Conferences  will  continue  what  we  have  begun. ' ' 1 

A  comparison  of  the  original  report  of  the  Commission 
to  the  Frankfort  Conference  with  the  amended  report 
handed  in  at  Breslau  discloses  a  wide  difference  in  spirit. 
The  Frankfort  report  deals  boldly  with  the  problem  and 
attempts  to  meet  the  situation  by  a  readjustment  all  along 
the  line  of  Sabbath  observance;  the  Breslau  amendments 
show  a  hesitancy  to  meet  the  situation  face  to  face,  which 
is  absent  from  the  original  report.  The  amended  report 
was  due  without  doubt  to  the  criticisms  to  which  the 
original  report  had  been  subjected  during  the  year  inter- 

1  Sixty  years  have  passed  since  the  question  of  the  collision  between 
Sabbath  observance  and  modern  life  was  discussed  for  the  first  time 
in  a  public  Jewish  forum.  The  passing  of  time  has  only  aggravated 
the  problem.  Sabbath  desecration  has  become  more  and  more  fla- 
grant among  Jews,  until  now  it  is  well-nigh  universal  wherever  the 
mediaeval  and  ghetto  conditions  have  disappeared.  In  the  prayers 
offered  in  the  synagogue  God  is  thanked  for  the  Sabbath,  the  day  of 
rest,  while  in  the  marts  of  trade  at  that  very  hour  the  Jew  is 
busy  as  on  other  days  of  the  week,  bartering  and  bargaining.  The 
problem  first  discussed  at  Breslau  is  as  far  from  being  solved  as  ever, 
unless  the  suggestion  already  made  at  that  conference  by  Holdheim, 
that  the  Sabbath  be  transferred  to  the  civil  day  of  rest,  be  considered 
a  satisfactory  solution.  An  interesting  parallel  is  afforded  by  com- 
paring the  first  public  debate  on  the  Sabbath  question  at  this  Breslau 
Conference  and  the  last  public  discussion  of  this  same  question  at  the 
meeting  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Babbis  at  New  Or- 
leans in  1902,  at  Detroit  in  1903,  and  at  Cleveland  in  1905.  The 
same  difficulties  are  presented;  the  same  conflicting  opinions  are 
noted;  here  as  there  the  majority  cry,  The  Sabbath  must  be  saved, 
but  no  efficient  means  for  that  salvation  are  offered;  here  as  there 
a  small  minority  declare  that  a  transfer  to  Sunday  will  alone  save 
the  Sabbath  institution  for  the  Jew.  Now  as  then  it  is  evident  that 
the  weight  of  Jewish  opinion  inclines  to  the  conviction  that  for  the 
Jew  there  can  be  no  Sabbath  except  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  but  again 
now  as  then  it  is  just  as  evident  that  the  collision  between  the 
actual  conditions  of  life  and  Sabbath  observance  presents  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  Jewish  practice  and  that  after  the  lapse  of  all  these  years 
it  is  as  far  as  ever,  if  not  farther,  from  being  settled. 


284  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

veiling  between  the  two  conferences.  The  Commission  took 
account  of  the  criticisms  and  so  changed  the  report  as  to 
give  satisfaction  to  none  in  the  end,  neither  radicals, 
moderates  nor  traditionalists. 

Space  will  not  permit  the  reproduction  at  length  of  the 
arguments  of  the  members  of  the  Conference  on  what  is 
the  essential  nature  of  the  Sabbath,  nor  is  this  necessary. 
Each  one  had  his  own  theory  of  the  Sabbath,  and  many 
propounded  this  in  great  detail.  It  was  regrettable  that 
so  much  time  was  devoted  to  academic  discussions  of  the 
question  and  so  little  to  a  practical  solution  of  the  difficulty. 
What  was  desired  and  required  was  a  way  out;  the  Sab- 
bath was  not  being  observed  as  a  day  of  rest;  thousands 
were  following  their  vocations,  business,  professional,  in- 
dustrial; could  anything  be  done  to  relieve  the  strain  of 
the  situation  and  restore  the  Sabbath  to  the  Jew?  Geiger, 
in  his  resume  at  the  close  of  the  entire  discussion,  stated 
that  something  must  be  done  to  preserve  the  Sabbath  and 
that  the  Commission's  suggestions  were  made  with  that 
end  in  view,  but  he  confessed  that  they  could  suggest  no 
satisfactory  remedy  that  would  remove  completely  the  col- 
lision between  life  and  Sabbath  observance. 1 

Auerbach  declared,  in  a  similar  vein,  "Our  civil  day  of 
rest  is  another  than  our  traditional  Sabbath.  This  consti- 
tutes the  chief  collision.  The  commission  has  offered  no 
suggestion  how  this  is  to  be  removed ;  I  have  none  to  offer 
either."2  There  were  those  who,  like  Salomon,  felt  that 
the  question  had  better  not  have  been  taken  up  at  all,  for 
no  satisfactory  solution  could  be  reached.  "A  very  simple 

1ProtoTcolle  der  dritten  Versammlung  deutscher  Babbiner,  160; 
see  also  Die  dritte  Rabbinerversammlung ,  ein  Vorlaufiges  Wort  zur 
Verstandigung,  p.  4,  "  I  am  frank  to  confess  that  the  results  achieved 
by  the  Conference  towards  a  solution  of  the  Sabbath  problem  are 
small  in  comparison  with  the  great  collisions  between  Sabbath  ob- 
servance and  life. ' ' 

2  ProtoTcolle,  131.  See  also  Stein,  ibid.,  167.  A.  Adler,  ibid., 
171.  M.  Levy,  ibid.,  172. 


THE   EABBINICAL  CONFEEENCES,   1844-1846          285 

idea/'  he  stated,  "lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  Sabbath; 
man,  the  image  of  God,  shall  not  toil  unconsciously  like 
the  animal,  unremittingly  like  the  slave;  he  should  work 
from  higher  motives,  viz.,  religion ;  he  should  rest  in  order 
that  he  may  learn  to  know  himself  and  his  dear  ones,  that 
he  may  concern  himself  with  spiritual  matters  in  order  to 
further  the  well-being  of  life  and  the  spirit.  How  this 
simple  idea  has  been  spun  out  by  later  generations  of  men ! 
How  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  has  degenerated! 
What  a  thousand  and  one  fences  have  been  erected  about 
the  Sabbath!  Because  of  these  things  the  deliberations 
on  the  Sabbath  are  the  most  difficult,  and  I  still  believe, 
despite  the  splendid  addresses  that  we  have  heard,  that  it 
would  have  been  better  to  consider  the  Sabbath  a  noli  me 
tangere  and  not  to  have  taken  it  up  for  the  present;  for 
whatever  decision  we  may  arrive  at  will  anger  one  class 
and  be  decried  as  foolishness  by  another;  the  former,  for 
whom  every  inherited  folly  is  holy,  will  persecute  us  as 
though  we  have  stolen  their  God ;  the  latter,  for  whom  every 
holy  thing  is  folly  will  mock  at  us  if  we  permit  them 
such  things  as  they  have  permitted  themselves  long  ago. ' ' * 
In  truth,  the  confession  of  powerlessness  to  solve  the 
difficulty  on  the  part  of  so  many  able  men  is  a  very  strik- 
ing feature  of  the  debate.  One  feels  that  the  remedies 
suggested  by  the  members  of  the  Commission  and  others 
were  only  makeshifts,  temporary  supports  against  the  on- 
rushing  avalanche  of  life  which  was  engulfing  all  the 
thoughts  and  activities  of  the  emancipated  Jew.  All  but 
one !  The  remedy  proposed  by  Holdheim  that  the  Sabbath 
be  transferred  to  Sunday  was  certainly  not  a  makeshift, 
whatever  else  it  may  be  considered  to  be  or  not  to  be.  It 
met  with  little  sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  other  members 
of  the  Conference ;  but,  before  giving  attention  to  this  one 
drastic  solution,  it  is  necessary  to  indicate  in  brief  the 

1  Protokolle,  111. 


286  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

thoughts  expressed  on  the  nature  of  the  Sabbath  and  the 
significance  of  the  Sabbath  idea. 

The  question  that  divided  the  members  of  the  Commis- 
sion as  to  whether  the  idea  of  rest  or  of  consecration  was 
the  essential  feature  of  the  Sabbath  also  lined  up  the 
members  of  the  conference  on  opposing  sides.  In  the 
course  of  the  debate  Wechsler x  S.  Adler, 2  Holdheim, 3 
Herxheimer,  4  Herzfeld, 5  Goldstein, 6  and  Sobernheim, 7 
argued  that  the  rest  is  the  fundamental  purpose  of  the 
Sabbath,8  while  Geiger,9  A.  Adler,10  Gosen,11  Pick,12  Salo- 
mon, 13  L.  Levy  14  and  Jolowicz  15  claimed  that  consecration 
was  that  fundamental  purpose ;  Stein  16  and  Wagner  17  con- 
tended that  both  rest  and  consecration  were  fundamental 
to  the  Sabbath  idea.  The  practical  outcome  of  this  differ- 
ence of  opinion  naturally  was  that  those  who  considered 
the  rest  idea  fundamental  laid  greatest  stress  on  the  observ- 
ance of  the  day  as  a  time  of  cessation  from  all  work,  while 
such  as  claimed  the  consecration  idea  to  be  fundamental 
contended  that  the  Sabbath  observance  culminated,  not  in 
idle  abstention  from  work,  but  in  sanctifying  thought  and 
sentiment  by  worship  and  prayer.  There  is  no  justification 
in  making  this  broad  distinction.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  both  rest  and  consecration  are  inherent  in  Sabbath 
observance;  the  word  rDP  (Sabbath)  itself  means  rest,  and 
the  resting  from  toil  was  to  be  combined  with  acts  of  con- 

1  ProtoTcolle,  40.  *  Hid.,  51. 

8  Ibid.,  59.  Holdheim  argued  that  according  to  the  Mosaic  concep- 
tion, rest  is  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Sabbath,  but  that  in  the 
development  of  Judaism  consecration  became  the  positive  element  of 
Sabbath  observance  and  that  at  present  this  is  the  essential  feature. 
See  below.  *  Ibid.,  83.  *  Ibid.,  103.  6  Ibid.,  143. 

TI6td.,  150. 

8  So  also  Samuel  Hirsch,  I.  N.  J.,  VII,  266. 

9 Pro*.,   87.  "Ibid.,   77.  "Ibid.,   80. 

"Ibid.,  97.  islbid.,  111. 

"Ibid.,  145.  "Ibid.,  155. 

"Ibid.,  118.  "Ibid.,  125. 


THE   EABBIN1CAL   CONFEBENCES,   1844-1846          287 

secration  and  sanctification,  but  it  was  to  be  applied  posi- 
tively to  make  of  the  Sabbath  a  delight,  the  honorable  and 
honored  day  of  God,  as  the  prophet  declares.  Holdheim 
drew  the  picture  of  the  development  of  the  Sabbath  idea 
so  clearly  that  his  argument  may  well  be  reproduced : 

In  the  Bible,  especially  in  the  Pentateuch,  TUG?  means 
rest  from  earthly  toil ;  hence  the  cessation  from  usual  work 
and  not  the  active  celebration  is  the  chief  moment ;  rest  is 
commanded,  but  not  religious  celebration,  unless  it  be  the 
double  sacrifice.  But  "rest"  connotes  not  only  the  intermis- 
sion of  all  disturbing  toil,  but  also  the  positive  realization 
of  the  Sabbath  idea  through  consecration.  This  positive 
side  is  in  truth  the  more  important;  to  find  this  we  must 
only  bear  in  mind  in  what  the  essence  of  time  exists  and 
what  God's  relation  to  it  is.  Time  is  absolute  motion;  its 
birth  is  also  its  passing;  it  is  constant  change;  hence  one 
might  say  that  its  being  is  non-being.  Opposed  to  this 
essence  of  time  is  the  being  of  God  as  the  true  existence  rnrp 
and  at  the  same  time  the  absolutely  constant  unchangeable, 
immovable  being,  i.  e.,  the  conception  of  rest  as  over 
against  motion  or  restlessness.  Therefore,  if  a  season  is  to 
be  considered  a  season  of  God  (Gotteszeit) ,  it  must  be  con- 
ceived as  a  rest-time  (Ruhezeit).  Rest  gives  it  the  appear- 
ance and  character  of  the  divine  and  thus  imparts  to  it  the 
higher  sanctity.  Hence,  rest  is  the  symbol  employed  by 
man  to  designate  the  day  of  God;  and  in  this  manner  the 
rest  on  the  Sabbath  became  an  actual  recognition  of  God  in 
his  relation  to  time,  a  serving  of  the  Eternal  in  his  infinite 
exaltation  over  all  that  is  transient,  changeable  and  vain. 
It  is,  however,  a  mistake  to  think  only  of  the  negative  side 
of  the  Sabbath  conception,  viz.,  the  cessation  from  labor; 
the  Sabbath  aims  to  take  man  out  of  the  transitory  and 
ungodly  and  lead  him  to  true  existence  and  life,  to  mm  ; 
hence  the  Talmud  is  correct  when  it  defines  the  rest  on 
Sabbath  and  holidays,  the  nrp3&5>  as  the  positive  command 
DIVE)  and  the  abstention  from  labor  as  the  negative 

tf  ni¥D). 


288  THE  BBFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Since  rest  is  the  fundamental  idea  in  the  Mosaic  concep- 
tion of  the  Sabbath,  the  reason  for  its  institution  is  con- 
nected with  the  highest  and  most  important  things,  viz., 
God's  rest  after  creation,  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel 
and  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  The  conception  of  God's 
resting  after  creation  points  to  the  absolute  difference  be- 
tween God  and  the  world  he  created,  between  the  Creator 
and  the  creature,  and  accentuates  the  true  meaning  of  rest 
as  the  eternal  element  over  against  the  mutability  of  time 
(see  above)  (Ex.  xx.  8-11;  Gen.  ii.  2,  3;  Ex.  xxxi.  17.) 

The  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  is  mentioned  as  the  rea- 
son of  the  Sabbath  (Ex.  xxxi.  13,  17).  The  recognition  of 
God  as  Creator  is  the  revelation  of  the  absolute  difference 
between  God  and  the  world ;  it  includes  the  recognition  of 
his  unity  and  personality  as  well  as  holiness.  This  charac- 
terizes the  difference  between  Mosaism  and  other  religions ; 
since  the  Sabbath  in  its  fundamental  idea  refers  to  this 
revelation,  its  celebration  is  the  actual  recognition  of  it. 
He  who  observes  the  Sabbath  becomes  the  bearer  of  the  sign 
of  this  relation ;  the  non-observance  of  the  Sabbath  had  to 
appear  as  a  violation  of  the  covenant  and  was  an  actual 
falling  away  from  the  one  true  God,  Creator  of  heaven  and 
earth ;  hence  it  implied  idolatry  and  therefore  the  command 
to  observe  the  Sabbath  is  joined  with  the  warning  against 
idolatry  and  backsliding  (Lev.  xix.  3,  4;  Ezek.  xx.  16-20; 
xxiii.  36-39).  The  deliverance  from  Egypt  is  mentioned 
as  the  reason  for  observing  the  Sabbath  in  Deut.  v.  12-15 ; 
this  was  also  conceived  as  a  creative  act,  the  creation  of  a 
people.  God  is  called  5*ntJ»  NTO,  and  the  object  of  this 
creative  omnipotence  was  the  sanctification  of  the  people; 
hence  there  is  here  the  same  general  idea  upon  which  Sab- 
bath rests  in  the  other  cases,  viz.,  creating  and  sanctifying. 
From  all  this  it  grows  clear  why  such  stress  was  laid 
upon  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  Those  truths  on 
which  the  religious  and  Apolitical  existence  of  Israel  rested 
were  concentrated  in  the  Sabbath  idea,  and  its  non-observ- 


THE    EABBINICAL   CONFEKENCES,   1844-1846          289 

ance  therefore  implied  the  denial  of  those  truths ;  for  this 
reason  extermination  (ms)  was  the  punishment  for  the 
Sabbath  breaker.  Ex.  xxxi.  14.  Proceeding  with  his 
argument,  he  proved  this  from  the  philosophers  and  com- 
mentators. 

Hence  traditonally  "rest  is  the  symbol  or  ceremony  and 
the  presentation  of  the  Sabbath  idea  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  whole  symbolism  of  the  Mosaic  law.  There- 
fore all  work  which  disturbs  rest  is  forbidden  in  the  Bible 
on  the  Sabbath;  were  the  celebration  the  chief  moment,  as 
the  Commission  asserts,  then  only  such  work  would  be  for- 
bidden as  disturbs  the  celebration;  but  rest  is  the  chief 
moment  and  everything  opposed  to  it  is  forbidden. 

In  the  later  historical  development  of  Judaism  in  the 
Talmudical  era  and  in  all  likelihood  already  in  the  pro- 
phetical age  (as  seems  likely  from  some  hints),  there  was 
developed  besides  the  rest  as  the  negative  side  of  Sabbath 
celebration,  the  positive  element  which  aimed  at  the  relig- 
ious refreshment  of  the  spirit  by  Beading  from  the  law  and 
by  divine  service.  That  this  involved  a  conflict  between 
Mosaism  which  regarded  rest  as  the  chief  moment  and  a 
new  conception  which  gave  an  ethical  and  moral  interpre- 
tation to  the  Sabbath  was  not  recognized,  but  the  two  were 
accepted  together;  the  Sabbath  continued  to  be  considered 
the  chief  symbol  representing  creation  and  all  other  ideas ; 
the  Mosaic  Sabbath-rest  and  the  later  Sabbath-sanctification 
existed  on  together. 

How  is  it  with  us?  Can  we  with  our  modern  culture 
accept  the  notion  of  antiquity  that  the  Sabbath  rest  in  it- 
self implies  all  these  fundamental  doctrines  of  God  as 
Creator,  Israel  as  the  covenant-people,  etc.,  and  that  by 
resting  we  confess  these  things,  and  that  not  resting  is 
equivalent  to  a  denial  of  these  most  important  religious 
truths  ?  We  must  certainly  answer  no !  if  we  wish  to  be 
honest.  We  have  left  behind  us  the  symbolic  age.  A  re- 
ligious truth  is  significant  for  us  not  becausi  we  symbolize 
19 


290  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

it  by  some  ceremony,  but  because  we  grasp  it  intellectually 
and  it  becomes  a  very  part  of  our  nature.  Hence  we  can- 
not consider  that  he  really  observes  the  Sabbath  who  passes 
the  day  in  indolent  rest,  although  according  to  Biblical  and 
later  ideas  he  would  be  doing  so.  Rest  in  itself  contains 
nothing  positive,  and  is  significant  for  us  only  as  the  nega- 
tive condition,  and  means  making  possible  the  observance 
of  the  Sabbath  by  spiritual  uplifting. 

If  we  ask,  then,  what  work  is  forbidden,  the  answer  is 
easy ;  as  from  the  Biblical  standpoint,  where  the  rest  is  the 
chief  thing,  all  activities  are  forbidden  that  disturb  rest, 
so  from  our  standpoint  where  the  observance  (Feier)  is 
the  essential  and  rest  only  a  condition,  any  activity  is  for- 
bidden that  disturbs  the  observance. 1 

In  this  statement  of  Holdheim  reference  is  made  to  the 
Sabbath  as  a  symbol.  On  this  point,  too,  some  of  the  lead- 
ing spirits  of  the  conference  differed  absolutely ;  thus  Ein- 
horn  claimed  that  throughout  the  Bible  the  Sabbath  is 
designated  (Jlltf)  a  symbol ;  it  symbolizes  freedom  from 
labor  (Deuteronomy)  and  rest  from  creation  (Exodus) 
D^yn  t?nn  5y  rniD  mt?  ;  all  productive  labor  must  be  in- 
termitted; in  post-Mosaic  Biblical  writings  the  Sabbath  is 
emphasized  as  the  symbol  of  Israel's  holiness  as  contrasted 
with  the  peoples  of  the  world ;  in  the  Talmud  it  is  held  to 
be  the  symbol  of  creation. 2  Geiger,  on  the  other  hand,  de- 
clared flatly  that  the  Bible  does  not  consider  the  Sabbath  a 
symbol. 3 

Formstecher  also  contended  that  "the  Sabbath  is  not  a 
symbol,  but  an  end  in  itself.  Each  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments is  an  end  in  itself,  and  not  a  symbol ;  hence,  also  the 
Sabbath.  Further  the  pre-Exilic  prophets  who  urge  that 
symbols,  like  sacrifices,  fasting,  etc.,  must  yield  to  God- 
fearing conduct,  all  insist  on  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 

1  ProtoTcolle,  59-73. 

2  Ibid.,  57.  *im.,  87. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846         291 

bath ;  hence,  they  could  not  have  looked  upon  it  merely  as 
a  symbol. ' '  * 

Auerbach,  too,  held  that  the  Sabbath  was  not  a  symbol, 
but  he  did  not  rest  content  with  this  negative  statement, 
but  injected  a  new  thought  into  the  discussion  when  he 
designated  the  Sabbath  to  be  an  institution. 2  ' '  Judaism 
lives  not  in  an  abstract  creed,  but  in  its  institutions,"  he 
said;  "it  is  not  merely  doctrine,  but  a  religion  of  deed. 
Israel  itself  is  a  divine  institution,  standing  forth  prom- 
inently in  history,  effective  through  its  very  existence. 
The  Sabbath  institution  permeates  all  of  Mosaism,  hence 
the  sanctification  of  the  seventh  week,  the  seventh  month, 
the  seventh  year  and  finally  the  jubilee  year." 

It  would  be  interesting  to  reproduce  more  of  the  exhaust- 
ive, learned  and  spirited  discussions  that  occupied  so  many 
of  the  sessions  of  the  conference,  but  enough  has  been  given 
to  indicate  the  chief  thoughts  that  were  brought  forth  in 
the  academic  and  theoretical  consideration  of  the  subject. 
What,  however,  about  the  practical  suggestions  for  the 
solution  of  this  vexed  problem  of  Sabbath  observance? 
Were  there  any  such  suggestions?  As  noted  above,  both 
the  Commission  and  individual  members  of  the  Conference 
confessed  their  inability  to  offer  a  complete  remedy.  The 
best  they  could  do  was  to  claim  that  a  beginning  was  made 
at  this  conference  and  that  future  conferences  must  con- 
tinue considering  the  question  until  a  final  and  satisfactory 
solution  should  have  been  reached.  The  Commission  itself, 
basing  upon  the  thesis  that  the  consecration  of  the  day  was 
its  essential  feature,  believed  that  if  the  services  in  the 
synagogue  were  made  of  such  a  character  as  to  attract  and 
edify  the  people  this  would  gradually  react  upon  life  and 
the  people  would  be  so  impressed  with  the  consecrated 
character  of  the  day  that  they  would  sacrifice  material  con- 

*Prot.,  146. 

2  Pro*.,  130.  Earlier  in  the  debate  A.  Adler  had  hinted  at  this 
when  he  called  the  Sabbath  a  state  institution  (Staatsinstitution) . 


292  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

siderations,  desert  the  business  marts,  interrupt  economic 
and  industrial  pursuits  and  give  the  Sabbath  its  proper 
place  as  the  weekly  season  of  religious  consecration.  Time 
has  demonstrated  how  fallacious  was  this  argument  and 
how  delusive  this  expectation.  Another  practical  sugges- 
tion was  that  of  Formstecher 's  advising  the  formation  of 
Sabbath  associations  in  various  communities  whose  object  it 
was  to  be  to  foster  the  spirit  of  Sabbath  observance  among 
such  as  could  be  induced  to  enroll  themselves  as  members. 
The  recommendation  was  embodied  in  the  report  as  finally 
adopted  by  the  Conference.  The  third  practical  sugges- 
tion was  that  suggested  by  Holdheim  and  Hirsch,  viz.,  the 
transfer  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  civil  day  of  rest.  The 
Breslau  Conference  will  remain  notable,  if  for  no  other 
reason,  for  the  fact  that  it  was  during  its  sessions  that  this 
drastic  measure  was  first  suggested  as  the  only  solution  of 
the  Sabbath  difficulty.  Hirsch  hinted  at  it  when  he  moved 
for  the  appointment  of  the  Commission  at  the  Brunswick 
Conference.  He  was  unable  to  attend  the  Breslau  meet- 
ing, but  he  sent  a  communication  in  which  he  stated  that 
the  conflict  between  religion  and  life  in  the  matter  of  Sab- 
bath observance  could  be  removed  only  by  a  transfer  to 
Sunday;  he  closed  his  communication  by  offering  as  a  mo- 
tion that  "the  Conference  should  declare  that  the  Sabbath 
idea  can  find  expression  on  any  other  day.  Therefore  no 
community  steps  out  of  Judaism  which  celebrates  the  Sab- 
bath on  a  day  other  than  that  observed  up  to  this  time. ' ' x 
At  the  close  of  his  lengthy  address 2  at  the  fourth  session 
of  the  conference  Holdheim  declared  his  position  in  the 
matter  in  unambiguous  terms.  He  stated  that  he  would 
not  offer  a  resolution  recommending  the  transfer  to  Sunday 
because  he  was  convinced  that  this  would  be  rejected  with 
indignation  by  the  great  majority  of  the  people,  and  hence 
it  could  not  be  expected  that  it  would  be  concurred  in  by 

1 1.  N.  J.,  VII,  267-8. 
'Supra,  287. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,  1844-1846         293 

the  religious  guides,  but  he  felt  that  he  must  express  his 
views  because  freedom  of  expression  was  and  must  remain 
the  prerogative  of  every  member  of  the  assembly.  He  then 
declared  unreservedly,  '  *  all  our  effort  for  the  restoration  of 
a  worthy  celebration  of  the  Sabbath  is  fruitless  and  there 
is  unfortunately  no  thorough  remedy  whereby  the  con- 
flict between  the  Sabbath  and  the  demands  of  daily  life 
can  be  removed  other  than  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  to 
a  civil  day  of  rest.  I  deny  that  this  is  a  concession  to 
Christianity ;  I  have  in  view  the  only  possibility  of  a  worthy 
celebration  of  the  Sabbath.  The  wounds  from  which  our 
religious  life  is  suffering  affect  us  all  most  powerfully,  and 
perplexity  will  be  the  result  of  all  our  endeavor  until  the 
time  shall  come  when  the  only  possible  remedy  for  the 
disease  will  be  applied. ' '  He  then  continued  by  saying  that 
the  difficulty  of  the  transfer  lay  not  so  much  in  the  purely 
religious  as  in  the  symbolical  significance  of  the  Sabbath, 
viz.,  the  Biblical  statement  that  God  had  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  after  the  completion  of  the  creation  and  had 
sanctified  and  hallowed  it,  as  well  as  in  the  later  reference 
of  the  command  of  Sabbath  rest  to  this  fact  whereby  it 
becomes  certain  that  this  command  to  rest  refers  to  the 
seventh  day  (rrtm  r\W).  The  celebration  of  a  definite 
seventh  day  is  therefore  closely  connected  with  its  symbol- 
ical significance.  The  celebration  of  this  definite  day  sym- 
bolized in  an  earlier  time  distinctive  Jewish  ideas  in  con- 
trast with  heathenism;  it  can  have  no  significance  for  us 
in  itself  apart  from  these  ideas  which  have  become  our 
property.  If  we  wish  to  avoid  anthropomorphism,  we  can 
understand  the  story  that  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day 
in  no  other  way  than  that  God  manifested  thus  the  abso- 
lute difference  between  himself  and  the  world  which  he 
created.  Since  we  claim  that  this  and  all  cognate  beliefs 
are  no  longer  realized  by  man  through  rest,  we  must  observe 
the  Sabbath  hereafter  not  through  mere  rest,  but  through 
active  consecration  and  the  sanctification  of  life;  for  the 


294  TaE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Biblical  phrase,  "man  shall  sanctify  the  Sabbath,"  we 
must  substitute  the  words  "man  shall  consecrate  himself 
on  the  Sabbath;"  every  reason  for  the  observance  of  the 
definite  day  falls  away  and  the  purely  religious  significance 
of  the  day  cannot  contain  any  religious  obstacle  to  the 
transfer  if  this  is  demanded  by  other  religious  reasons. 
Since  the  Sabbath  is  of  decisive  influence  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  religion,  the  reasons  for  a  transfer  of  the  same 
must  be  sought  and  found  exclusively  in  the  interest  taken 
in  the  preservation  of  the  religion.  The  Sabbath  is  in 
conflict  with  life,  and  experience  teaches  that  it  is  losing 
ground  daily  in  this  conflict,  and  that  there  is  no  hope  for 
its  issuing  victoriously  from  the  conflict.  The  rabbinical 
conference  has  undertaken  the  peaceful  adjustment  of 
this  conflict.  If  it  succeeds  in  this  there  can  be  no  talk  of 
a  retreat  of  the  Sabbath.  If,  however,  there  is  no  other 
manner  of  settling  the  conflict  peaceably,  then  the  religion 
is  threatened  by  the  greatest  danger  and  it  must  demand 
dictatorially  for  its  self-preservation  the  transfer  of  the 
Sabbath  to  another  day  as  the  only  effective  remedy. 
Hence  the  religious  reason  for  the  transfer  is  no  other  than 
this,  viz.,  to  save  the  religion  from  certain  destruction. 

He  then  said  that  he  forebore  to  give  other  reasons  be- 
cause these  were  of  a  subjective  and  individual  nature.  If 
those  who  truly  observe  the  traditional  Sabbath  protest 
against  a  transfer,  they  are  quite  right  and  consistent, 
since  for  them  the  religion  is  in  no  danger  inasmuch  as 
the  Sabbath  asserts  itself  as  victor  in  the  conflict  with 
life.  If  these,  however,  deny  the  right  of  such  as  really 
no  longer  observe  the  Sabbath  to  make  this  transfer,  they 
are  in  the  wrong,  for  here  there  is  really  danger,  and  for 
religion's  sake  energetic  action  must  be  taken.  This  non- 
observing  section  of  Jewry  has  concurred  thus  far  only  in 
the  negative  aspect  of  the  transfer,  viz.,  the  non-observ- 
ance of  the  historical  Sabbath ;  the  positive  observance  made 
possible  through  the  transfer  must  be  given  them  if  they  are 


THE    EABBIXICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          295 

not  to  be  entirely  alienated  from  the  religion  and  the  re- 
ligion be  lost  for  them  and  they  for  it. 

He  concluded  by  calling  attention  to  a  Biblical  prece- 
dent, viz.,  the  permission  given  to  such  as  were  prevented 
from  celebrating  the  Passover  at  the  prescribed  time  to  do 
so  a  month  later.  "The  religious  purpose  of  the  Passover 
feast  could  be  attained  through  the  postponed  celebration, 
so  can  also  the  religious  purpose  of  the  Sabbath  be  at- 
tained on  another  day.  Such  as  believe  or  fear  that  the 
preservation  of  Judaism  is  conditioned  by  ceremonial  ex- 
ternals rest  under  a  delusion.  .  .  .  We  wish  to  save  the 
Sabbath  for  Judaism  and  Judaism  through  the  Sabbath 
even  at  the  cost  of  surrendering  the  symbolical  shell  of 
transitoriness. ' ' 1 

This  suggestion  of  Hirsch  and  Holdheim  found  no  place 
in  the  official  resolutions  of  the  Conference, 2  but  it  was 
referred  to  time  and  again  in  the  course  of  the  debate. 3 

*ProtolcoUe,  70-73. 

2  Holdheim  touched  this  point  in  the  open  letters  which  he  pub- 
lished on  the  work  of  the  Conference.  His  words  are  of  interest. 
"The  conference  was  convinced  that  the  breach  between  religion 
and  life  could  not  be  repaired  by  the  resolutions  adopted  in  the 
matter  of  Sabbath  observance,  and  yet  it  had  not  the  courage  to  even 
name  the  only  possible  extreme  remedy,  viz.,  the  transfer  to  Sunday. 
They  deceived  themselves  and  others  by  the  phrase  that  a  proper 
celebration  of  the  Sabbath  would  strengthen  the  religious  sentiment 
once  again  and  make  the  demands  of  life  yield;  they  closed  their 
eyes  willfully  to  the  fact  that  existing  conditions  will  not  permit  the 
re-institution  of  a  proper  celebration  of  the  Sabbath,  and  therefore 
make  the  strengthening  of  the  religious  sentiment  through  this  means 
impossible;  this  is  possible  of  attainment  only  by  a  transfer  of  the 
celebration  of  the  Sabbath."  "Offene  Brief e  iiber  die  dritte  Eab- 
binerversammlung, "  /.  N.  J.,  VII,  364.  For  his  further  views  on 
the  subject  see  his  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  49,  148,  183,  196,  204,  209. 

*  Protokolle,  94.  In  his  first  pamphlet  on  the  work  of  the  Con- 
ference to  which  reference  has  been  made  several  times,  Geiger 
shows  how  impossible  it  was  for  the  Conference  to  make  a  pronounce- 
ment on  the  subject  (Die  dritte  Eab'binerversammlung,  ein  vorlaufiges 
Wort  zur  V erstdndigung ,  p.  8),  but  he  declares  that  the  institution 


296  THE  EEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

With  the  exception  of  Hess, *  all  who  touched  the  sub- 
ject, viz.,  A.  Adler, 2  Salomon, 3  Stein, 4  Philippson, 5 
Wagner, 6  and  Formstecher, 7  disapproved  strongly.  Salo- 
mon, in  concluding  his  remarks,  said :  i '  So  much  is  certain, 
we  must  alleviate  the  Sabbath  observance  for  the  people 
if  the  Sabbath  is  not  to  fall  in  the  background  altogether 
and  it  be  found  necessary  then  to  transfer  the  Sabbath  to 
the  Sunday.  God  forbid.  For  to  transfer  the  Sabbath 
to  the  Sunday  would  mean  to  serve  two  masters ;  it  would 
mean  coquetting  with  Christianity!  That  would  signify 
the  destruction  of  Judaism!"  Stein  expressed  himself 
similarly:  "I  am  firmly  convinced  that  Holdheim  is 
actuated  by  the  purest  motive  and  the  sincerest  desire  to 
help  our  sick  Judaism  (by  his  plea  to  transfer  the  Sabbath 
to  Sunday)  ;  but  I  beg  him  to  consider,  as  a  faithful  physi- 
cian, whether  the  medicine  which  he  prescribes  is  not  a 
dangerous  potion  the  imbibing  whereof  will  mean  either  life 
or  death;  and  whether  he  who  has  said  so  truly  elsewhere 
that  we  are  gardeners  who  cut  away  the  dead  branches 
but  must  beware  lest  we  cut  into  the  living  wood,  really 
considers  our  Sabbath  so  dead  that  he  does  not  fear  that 
he  is  cutting  into  the  living  wood !  ...  If  we  transfer  the 
Sabbath  to  the  Sunday,  we  will  bury  Judaism  on  Friday 

of  a  supplemental  service  on  Sunday  is  the  prerogative  of  any  Con- 
gregation (p.  9),  and  goes  on  to  say:  "I  consider  the  need  of  the 
present  [for  a  service  on  Sunday]  as  so  important  that  it  must  be 
satisfied  in  spite  of  ulterior  apprehensions  of  what  may  happen; 
but  because  of  these  apprehensions  precautions  should  be  taken  when 
a  service  of  this  kind  is  instituted  that  will  remove  such  apprehensions 
as  far  as  possible.-''  In  later  years  he  favored  a  service  on  Sunday 
once  a  month  which  would  give  a  large  portion  of  the  congregation 
the  opportunity  to  attend  and  at  the  same  time  not  undermine  the 
Sabbath.  * '  Nothwendigkeit  und  Maass  einer  Eeform  des  jiidischen 
Gottesdienstes, ' '  Breslau,  1861;  republished  in  Nachgelassene 
Schriften,  I,  226;  see  also  his  statement  in  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  I,  77-78. 

*Prot.,  82.     See  also  I.  N.  J.,  VII,  283,  330  note. 

2Prot.,  79.  *Ibid.,  115.  4  Ibid.,  119. 

8  Ibid.,  125.  «Ibid.,  29-30.  7  Ibid.,  149. 


THE    RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          297 

evening  to  permit  it  to  be  resurrected  on  Sunday  morning 
as  another  religion !" 

Philippson  gave  voice  to  his  unqualified  opposition  in 
the  statement:  "All  history  declares  against  the  transfer 
of  the  Sabbath.  Christianity  and  Islam  have  transferred 
the  Sabbath  to  Sunday  and  Friday  respectively  in  order 
to  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  Jews,  and  to  obtain 
their  autonomy.  And  Judaism  shall  now  surrender  its 
autonomy  and  we  shall  go  and  say:  we  wish  to  celebrate 
the  clays  that  you  celebrate ! ' n 

S.  Adler  offered  a  resolution  on  this  subject  of  the  follow- 
ing tenor :  '  *  Resolved  that  the  Conference,  while  recogniz- 
ing the  purposefulness  of  Associations  for  the  Reform  of 
Judaism  -  in  general  and  of  Sunday  services  because  they 
are  held  on  that  week-day  on  which  the  German  Jews  of 
to-day  have  more  leisure  than  any  other,  still  declares  that 
the  conducting  of  a  Sabbath  service  on  Sunday,  whether 
this  be  the  only  service  of  the  week  or  the  conducting  of  a 
similar  service  on  Saturday  be  suffered  in  connection  there- 

1  Prot.     However,  in  discussing  S.  Adler 's  resolution   (see  below) 
he  declared  a  service  on  Sunday  to  be  an  urgent  need  of  the  times 
(Protol:,  250) ;  see  also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  502-3. 

2  An  object   of  this  resolution,   aside   from  its   main   significance, 
was   to    encourage   such  reform   organizations   like   the   recently   or- 
ganized Berlin  Reform  Association.     This  association  had  attempted 
to  come  into  close  relations  with  the  Conference  at  the  meeting  in 
Frankfort  the  previous  year.     This  year  the  Berlinese  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  Conference;    after  referring  to   the  occurrence  at  the 
previous  Conference,  the  letter  proceeded  to  set  forth  the  work  of 
both  organizations;   the  writers  claimed  that  both  their  association 
and  the  Conference  are  at  one  in  their  campaign  against  petrified 
orthodoxy  and  in  the  attempt  to   express  and  promulgate  the  pure 
content  of  Judaism.     The  letter  was  rather  dictatorial  in  tone  and 
aroused  some  resentment  among  the  members  of  the  Conference.     It 
was  referred  to  a  committee  consisting  of  Stein,  Einhorn,  and  S.  Adler, 
with  the  instruction  to  prepare  an  answer.     When  this  answer  was 
submitted,  it  caused  so  much  discussion  and  gave  rise  to  such  de- 
cided   diiferences    of    view    that    the    whole    matter    was    dropped 
(Protokolle,  278). 


298  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

with,  contradicts  the  teaching  and  the  spirit  of  Judaism, 
and  as  such  is  unwarrantable."  The  Sabbath  Commission 
to  whom  this  resolution  was  referred  reported  as  follows: 
"The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion,  with  which  the  mover 
of  the  resolution  agrees,  that  since  it  has  appeared  most 
emphatically  and  impressively  from  the  debate  on  the  Sab- 
bath that  the  Conference  attaches  a  Sabbatical  character  to 
the  Saturday,  the  chief  contention  of  the  resolution  is  there- 
by upheld ;  but  the  need  for  Sunday  services  is  not  so  wide- 
spread that  deliberation  on  the  subject  is  necessary,  and  for 
this  reason  action  on  this  subject  be  postponed."1 

The  main  purpose  of  Adler's  resolution  was  to  place  the 
Conference  on  record  as  opposed  to  a  transfer  of  the  Sab- 
bath to  Sunday ;  the  resolution  was  called  forth  undoubted- 
ly by  the  acts  of  the  recently  formed  Reform  Society  of 
Berlin,  which  held  its  service  on  Sunday.  The  mover  of 
the  resolution  evidently  wished  to  have  it  understood  that 
he  approved  of  organizations  like  the  Berlin  society  which 
were  formed  to  advance  the  cause  of  reform  Judaism,  and 
further  that  there  could  be  no  objection  to  a  service  on 
Sunday,  the  day  on  which  the  Jews  were  at  leisure,  but  that 
there  was  decided  objection  to  giving  this  service  the 
character  of  a  Sabbath  service. 2 

1  Protokolle,  249-50. 

2  Sunday  services  were  introduced  at  this  period  by  a  number  of 
congregations,    notably    the    Berlin    Eeform    Congregation,    the    full 
story  whereof  will   form  the   subject  of  a  subsequent   chapter.     In 
Konigsberg  a  service  on  Sunday,  in  addition  to  the  regular  Sabbath 
service,  was  instituted  May  30,  1847,  by  the  rabbi  J.  L.  Saalschiitz; 
the  orthodox  party  appealed  to  the  government,  calling  attention  to 
a  ministerial  rescript  which  forbade  Jews  to  change  their  traditional 
mode  of  worship;  the  government  accordingly  ordered  the  cessation 
of  services  on  Sunday  (A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  378,  428-9).     The  officers  of 
the    congregation   succeeded   in   having    this   prohibition   withdrawn, 
whereupon  Sunday,  June  13,  was  selected  as  the  day  for  the  intro- 
duction of  these  services;   before  this  day  arrived  the  government 
renewed  its  prohibition  under  threat  of  a  heavy  fine;  after  further 
negotiations  the  government  finally  gave  its  consent,  and  a  regular 


THE   KABBINTCAL   CONFEBENCES,  1844-1846          299 

In  the  discussion  that  ensued  Philippson  stated  that  he 
considered  a  service  on  Sunday  to  be  an  urgent  need  of  the 
time  and  desired  a  division  of  the  two  suggestions  in 
Adler's  resolution  and  a  separate  vote  on  each.  This  was 
not  agreed  to.  Holdheim  urged  that  the  Conference  con- 
tradicted itself  by  this  declaration ;  it  had  adopted  no  reso- 
lution on  the  subject  of  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath,  and 
yet  declares  by  this  statement  that  only  the  seventh  day  has 
a  Sabbatical  character. 

Further  debate  was  disallowed,  but  each  member  was 
permitted  to  make  a  personal  explanation  in  giving  his 
vote.  Philippson,  Holdheim,  and  Hess  did  so.  The  re- 
mainder of  the  members  voted  in  favor  of  the  resolution 
postponing  further  consideration  of  the  question;  as  it 

Sunday  service  was  instituted  on  August  1.  A  special  ritual  in 
German  was  composed  for  this  service  (ibid.,  448,  491,  523).  In 
the  sermon  delivered  on  this  occasion  Dr.  Saalschutz  gave  the  history 
of  the  reform  movement  in  the  congregation  and  stated  his  reasons 
for  favoring  a  service  on  Sunday  (ibid.,  558-9). 

Dr.  S.  Formstecher,  of  Offenbach,  instituted  a  service  on  Sunday 
afternoon  in  1847  (ibid.,  378,  428) ;  his  opponents  petitioned  the 
government  to  forbid  his  taking  that  step;  the  petition  was  rejected 
(ibid.,  504).  The  reform  congregation  of  Pesth,  Hungary,  organized 
in  August,  1848,  held  its  services  on  Sunday. 

Other  interesting  incidents  indicate  how  widespread  at  this  time 
was  the  desire  for  a  religious  service  on  the  civil  day  of  rest.  In 
March,  1846,  a  number  of  members  of  the  congregation  of  Brussels 
requested  the  introduction  of  a  service  on  Sunday  because  they  were 
unable  to  attend  on  Saturday  and  desired  to  go  with  their  families 
to  a  religious  service  once  a  week  (ibid.,  X,  264-5).  Fould,  the 
Parisian  banker,  when  a  member  of  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  (1843), 
suggested  the  practicability  of  such  a  compromise  (Voice  of  Jacob, 
III,  214).  In  1845  a  wealthy  merchant  of  Frankfort-on-the-Main 
offered  two  thousand  thalers  towards  the  erection  of  a  new  syna- 
gogue on  the  condition  that  it  be  opened  every  fortnight  for  a 
religious  service  on  Sunday,  when  the  organ  should  be  played  and  a 
sermon  delivered  (Orient,  VI,  178).  On  December  8,  1850,  a  service 
on  Sunday  afternoon  was  instituted  in  Vienna  for  the  benefit  of  the 
many  apprentices  whose  occupation  did  not  permit  them  to  attend 
on  Saturday  (A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XTV,  712). 


300  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

happened  this  postponement  proved  the  final  action  on  the 
subject,  for  the  fourth  Conference  never  convened.  The 
Sabbath  question  was  not  broached  at  a  rabbinical  Confer- 
ence until  fifty-six  years  later,  when  it  was  discussed  at  the 
New  Orleans  meeting  of  the  Central  Conference  of  Amer- 
ican Rabbis.  *  The  Breslau  Conference  was  bitterly  criti- 
cized and  stigmatized  as  cowardly  by  the  radical  wing  in 
Jewry  for  this  action.  Geiger  took  notice  of  this  criticism 
in  the  publication  already  referred  to  a  number  of  times, 
and  defended  the  Conference. 2 

As  finally  adopted  by  the  Conference,  the  resolutions  on 
the  Sabbath  read  as  follows: 

The  Conference  declares— 

1.  That  the  restoration  of  a  worthy  celebration  of  the' 
Sabbath  question  was  not  broached  at  a  rabbinical  Confer- 
most  sacred  tasks,  both  of  the  Israelitish  teacher  and  of 
each  individual  Israelite,  and  that  therefore  attention  must 
be  devoted  particularly  towards  arousing  an  ever  livelier 
consciousness  of  the  holiness  of  the  Sabbath  by  an  edifying 
divine  service  and  by  the  furtherance  of  Sabbath  consecra- 
tion in  the  homes. 

2.  That  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath  by  a  worthy  and 
dignified  divine  service  is  of  such  marked  importance  that 
activities  otherwise  prohibited  may  not  be  forbidden  in  con- 
nection  therewith,    and   that  therefore  everything  which 
conduces  towards  a  worthy  celebration  of  the  service  and 
makes  the  participation  of  the  individual  in  an  edifying 
service  possible  is  permitted. 

3.  That  no  spiritual  activities  detract  from  the  Sabbath 
celebration. 

4.  That  if  a  cessation  of  one's  occupation  jeopardizes 

1Year  Book  of  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  1902. 
The  Pittsburg  Conference  of  1885,  however,  had  made  a  declaration 
permitting  the  conducting  of  services  on  Sunday;  see  Chap.  XII. 

2  Die  dritte  Versammlung  deutschen  Edbbiner,  ein  vorlaufiges 
Wort  zur  Verstdndigung. 


THE   RABBINICAL    CONFERENCES,    1844-1846          3Q1 

his  livelihood,  the  attending  thereto  on  the  Sabbath  by  non- 
Israelites  is  permissible. 

5.  That  in  cases  where  the  entire  temporal  well-being, 
where   property    and    possessions,    where    the    means    for 
future  livelihood  are  threatened,  no  religious  duty  is  vio- 
lated if  precautions  to  save  these  are  taken  on  the  Sabbath ; 
nay,  if  even  the  actual  work  of  saving  is  done  on  the  Sab- 
bath. 

6.  That  in  case  of  danger  to  life,  whether  of  self  or 
others,  of  Israelites  or   non-Israelites,  everything  is  per- 
mitted—yes, commanded— to  be  done  to  avert  this  danger. 

7.  That  the  over-great  rigor  of  existing  commands  for 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  injurious  to  such  observ- 
ance.    Therefore   those  far-fetched  hedges  which  are  in- 
tended to  produce  complete  leisurely  rest  are  not  binding. 

8.  That  the  devices  which   were  invented  by   former 
authorities  with  the  purpose  of  alleviating  the  rigor  of 
Sabbath  observance,  but  which  seem  to  be  evasions,  like 
Erube    Chazerot   and   Erube    T'chumin,   are   inadmissible 
for  us;  nay,  superfluous— notably  the  latter  in  the  matter 
of  short  journeys  undertaken  not  for  industrial  purposes. 

9.  That  the  Jewish  soldier  is  obliged  to  perform  his  full 
military  duties  on  the  Sabbath. 

10.  That  the  Jewish  official  may  perform  the  duties  of 
his  office  in  as  far  as  he  is  obliged  to  do  so  on  the  Sab- 
bath, with  the  understanding,  however,  that  he  strive  to 
have  the  spirit  of  consecration  permeate  his  home  on  the 
Sabbath. 

11.  The  Conference  is  of  opinion  that  societies  for  the 
restoration  of  a  worthy  celebration  of  the  Sabbath  are  of 
benefit  under  certain  circumstances. 

These  resolutions  were  lamentably  inadequate.  True, 
they  declare  against  the  Talmudical  casuistry  of  the  Erube 
Chazerot  and  Erube  T'chumin,  but  they  substitute  a  new 
casuistry.  There  is  no  bold  position  taken;  a  painful 
hesitancy  is  apparent.  At  the  Frankfort  meeting  the  Con- 


302  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ference  in  its  resolutions  on  the  liturgy  had  opened  a  new 
path  and  had  broken  with  such  Talmudical  standpoints 
as  were  outgrown;  but  at  Breslau  an  altogether  different 
spirit  seemed  to  pervade  the  meetings;  a  confident 
consciousness  of  strength  and  ability  to  cope  with  the  sit- 
uation marked  the  Frankfort  gatherings ;  a  halting  fear  to 
grapple  with  the  problem  as  though  it  demanded  a  prowess 
greater  than  theirs  lamed  the  powers  of  the  participants 
in  the  Breslau  meeting.  It  was  undoubtedly  too  much  to 
expect  that  a  way  out  of  the  difficulty  would  be  found ;  but 
the  disappointment  was  none  the  less  keen,  and  the  Breslau 
Conference,  as  will  be  shown  later  on,  evoked  a  storm  of 
criticism  from  both  the  liberal  and  the  conservative  sides. 

Although  the  Sabbath  discussion  was  the  all-absorbing 
incident  of  this  conference,  other  questions  were  discussed 
to  which  reference  must  now  be  made. 

Festivals— The  Commission  to  which  the  Sabbath  ques- 
tion had  been  referred  also  reported  on  various  points  in 
connection  with  the  observance  of  the  holidays,  notably  the 
question  of  the  observance  of  the  second  day.  Wechsler 
reported  for  the  Commission ; 1  several  recommendations 
were  made  which  were  preceded  by  a  preliminary  address 
which  set  forth  the  reason  for  these  recommendations  in 
somewhat  the  following  language : 

The  observance  of  the  second  day  lacks  all  reason  in  our 
time  whatever  may  have  been  its  justification  in  an  earlier 
day.  The  reason  given  in  the  Talmud  for  this  observance 
because  this  may  be  necessary  in  the  future  when  the 
restoration  to  Palestine  takes  place  and  the  temple  will  be 
rebuilt  does  not  impress  us  very  deeply. 

Although  the  original  reasons  for  the  institution  of  these 
second  days  no  longer  obtains,  still  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  people  look  upon  them  as  holy  and  assign  to  them  re- 
ligious significance.  As  long  as  this  remains  the  case,  no 

1  Protolcolle,  190-193. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          3Q3 

good  reason  can  be  advanced  for  abandoning  them ;  but  if, 
because  of  their  frequency,  they  become  a  burden  or  de- 
tract from  the  fervor  wherewith  the  first  days  are  observed, 
then  the  time  has  come  to  abolish  them.  It  may  be  that 
this  is  the  case  with  some  of  these  second  days  and  not  with 
others.  At  any  rate,  circumstances  may  differ  in  different 
communities,  and  it  should  be  left  to  each  congregation  to 
determine  this  according  to  these  circumstances,  we  merely 
giving  the  assurance  that  if  any  congregation  determines  to 
abolish  the  observance  of  these  days  there  is  nothing  in 
Judaism  to  prevent  it. 

The  report  was  debated  at  length, *  and  the  resolutions 
as  finally  adopted  read  as  follows  : 

1.  The  second  days  of  the  holidays,  viz.,  the  second  and 
eighth  days  of  Passover,  the  second  day  of  the  Feast  of 
Weeks,  of  New  Year,  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  and  of 
the  Feast  of  Conclusion,  have  no  longer  any  significance  for 
our  time  according  to  our  religious  sources ;  the  second  day 
of  the  New  Year,  however,  deserves  special  consideration. 

2.  Therefore,  if  any  congregations  abolish  some  or  all 
of  these  second  days,  they  violate  no  religious  ordinance 
and  are  thoroughly  justified  in  their  act. 

3.  If  there  be  serious  objection  on  the  part  of  some 
members  of  a  congregation  to  such  abolition,  a  holiday 
service  may  be  held  on  the  second  day,  but  the  prohibition 
to  work  on  that  day  is  not  binding. 

4.  The  prohibition  to  eat  leavened  bread  on  the  twenty- 
second  of  Nissan  (the  eighth  day  of  Passover)  is  not  bind- 
ing. 

5.  It  is  permitted  to  blow  the  shofar  on  New  Year's 
Day  and  to  use  the  four  prescribed  fruits  on  the  first  Day 
of  Tabernacles  when  these  days  fall  on  a  Sabbath ;  in  such 
congregations  as  observe  only  one  day  these  features  of  the 
observance  of  the  holiday  must  be  observed  when  the  holi- 
day falls  on  Sabbath. 

1  Protolcolle,  208-248. 


304  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

6.  The  custom  of  abstaining  from  eating  leguminous 
plants,  inclusive  of  rice  and  hirse,  on  Passover  is  absolutely 
unfounded  and  is  therefore  not  to  be  observed. 

Liturgy.— At  the  Frankfort  Conference  a  commission  on 
liturgy  had  been  appointed  to  prepare  a  plan  for  a  prayer- 
book  along  the  lines  of  the  ideas  developed  in  the  dis- 
cussion and  contained  in  the  resolutions  adopted.  This 
commission  failed  to  agree  on  a  great  number  of  special 
points;  in  its  report  to  the  Conference  at  Breslau  these 
points  to  the  number  of  thirty-one  were  mentioned. *  It 
was  found  impracticable  to  discuss  these  points  in  open 
meeting;  it  was  therefore  resolved  to  refer  the  report  to  a 
special  committee,  which  was  to  confer  with  the  commission 
on  liturgy  and  report  during  the  session.  This  committee 
consisted  of  Einhorn,  S.  Adler,  Wechsler,  Holdheim  and 
Philippson.  At  a  later  session  it  was  resolved  that  the  re- 
port of  this  Committee  be  printed  and  sent  to  each  member 
of  the  Conference  with  the  request  that  objections  and  sug- 
gestions be  communicated  to  the  Committee,  which  should 
report  a  definite  plan  for  a  prayer-book  to  the  next  Confer- 
ence. 2  In  this  connection  mention  may  be  made  of  a  com- 
munication addressed  to  the  Conference  by  the  congregation 
of  Coslin  stating  that  this  congregation  had  adopted  the  reso- 
lutions touching  the  liturgy  passed  at  the  Frankfort  Con- 
ference. In  this  communication  the  following  words  were 
used,  which  are  reproduced  because  they  express  exactly 
the  status  of  the  Conferences  in  their  relation  to  the  con- 
gregations: "All  your  resolutions,  both  those  which  have 
been  adopted  and  those  which  are  still  to  be  adopted,  are 
to  be  considered  not  as  irrefragable  legislation,  but  only  as 
deliverances  founded  upon  the  spirit  and  the  pure  princi- 
ples of  Judaism,  which  every  individual  congregation  can 
modify  in  accordance  with  its  particular  religious  needs 
and  its  condition  of  culture. ' ' 3 

1  Protokolle,  33.  2  Ibid.,  271-274,  291.  8  Ibid.,  86. 


THE  RABBINICAL   CONFEBENCES,   1844-1846         3Q5 

Circumcision. — At  the  opening  session  of  the  Conference 
a  communication  was  received  from  Dr.  Adolph  Arnhold, 
of  Breslau,  in  which  he  set  forth  in  detail  the  sad  experience 
he  had  had  in  having  his  two  children  circumcised.  The 
first  had  almost  bled  to  death;  the  second  had  died  from 
the  effects  of  circumcision.  He  asked  the  Conference,  not 
for  a  decision  of  the  question  as  to  whether  circumcision 
was  necessary  and  indispensable  for  the  Jews,  but  for  an 
opinion  as  to  how  he  should  act  in  the  future.  ' '  Should  a 
son  be  born  to  me  hereafter,  will  it  not  suffice  if  I  have  him 
named  in  the  synagogue  and  have  the  customary  benedic- 
tion pronounced?  Can  the  state,  can  the  congregation, 
raise  any  objection  to  such  an  initiation  of  my  sons  into 
Judaism,  considering  the  experiences  I  have  had?"  This 
communication,  together  with  others  on  the  subject  of  cir- 
cumcision, was  discussed  in  executive  session.  Philippson 
urged  the  necessity  of  reforms  in  the  method  of  circum- 
cision; he  declared  that  the  operation  must  be  so  safe- 
guarded as  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  fatal  results.  The 
entire  matter  was  referred  to  a  commission  of  three,  con- 
sisting of  S.  Adler,  Holdheim,  and  Philippson,  with  in- 
structions to  report  during  the  sessions  of  the  Conference. 
The  Commission  reported  on  July  19th,  and  after  a  lengthy 
discussion  the  Conference  adopted  the  following  resolutions 
on  the  subject  of  circumcision : 

1.  It  is  necessary  that  every  mohel  take  a  thorough 
course  of  instruction  from  a  competent  physician  in  all 
matters  touching  the  operation,  pass  an  examination,  and 
have  a  license  (legitimation). 

2.  Any  mohel  who,  because  of  any  bodily  defect,  such 
as  trembling  of  the  hands,  nearsightedness,  etc.,  is  unfit  to 
perform  the  operation,  shall  not  be  permitted  hereafter  to 
fill  the  office. 

3.  The  operation  of  the  P'riah  with  a  surgical  instru- 
ment is  not  ritually  forbidden ;  it  is  therefore  to  be  left  to 
the  judgment  of  the  operator  or  the  assisting  physician 

20 


306  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

which  method  is  to  be  used  whether  with  the  nail,  as  is  the 
traditional  custom,  or  with  a  surgical  instrument. 

4.  The  mezizah  is  to  be  discontinued. 

5.  It   is   desirable   to   leave   the   after-treatment   to   a 
physician  or  surgeon. 

6.  It  is  necessary  that  a  medical  examination  take  place 
before  the   circumcision  in  order  that   it  be   determined 
whether  any  bodily  suffering  or  defect  make  a  deferring  of 
the  act  advisable  or  necessary. 

7.  In  such  cases  in  which,  according  to  a  physician's 
declaration,  a  child  has  died  or  has  sustained  lasting  injury 
from  circumcision,  and  it  is  therefore  a  fair  supposition  that 
danger  to  life  and  health  threaten  a  second  child  of  the 
same  parents,  the  act  of  circumcision  is  to  be  suspended 
until  a  medical  declaration  has  been  given  that  no  danger 
of  any  kind  is  to  be  feared  as  a  result  of  circumcision. 

The  Conference  did  not  discuss  for  a  moment  the  ques- 
tion whether  circumcision  is  a  conditio  sine  qua  non  of  ad- 
mission into  Judaism.  The  resolutions  adopted  at  Breslau 
had  the  purpose  simply  of  reforming  certain  abuses  and 
of  preventing  as  far  as  possible  any  ill  effects  from  the 
operation. 1 

Mourning  Customs.— Another  matter  in  Jewish  life  that 
called  loudly  for  reform  were  the  customs  observed  in  con- 
nection with  death  and  mourning.  The  subject  was 
broached  at  the  last  session  of  the  Frankfort  Conference, 
but  was  considered  of  too  great  importance  to  be  disposed 
of  in  the  hurry  of  a  closing  session;  it  was  postponed, 
therefore,  to  the  next  Conference.  Stein  reported  for  the 
Commission  at  the  Breslau  Conference,  whose  final  action  re- 
sulted in  the  adoption  of  a  number  of  important  reforms. 2 

1Dr.  A.  Arnhold,  whose  communication  had  caused  the  Conference 
to  take  up  the  circumcision  question,  published  a  pamphlet  on  the 
subject  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference,  entitled  Die  Be- 
schneidung  und  ihre  Reform  mlt  besonderer  EiicTcsicJit  auf  die  Ver- 
handlungen  der  dritten  Rabbinerversammlung.  Breslau,  1846. 

3  Pro*.,  279-290. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFEBENCES,   1844-1846          3Q7 

The  Conference  declared  that  the  following  customs 
which  were  survivals  from  earlier  periods  of  Jewish  life, 
viz.,  the  tearing  of  the  clothes  (nynp),the  abstention  from 
shaving  the  beard,  the  sitting  on  the  earth,  the  dispensing 
with  leather  footwear,  as  well  as  the  prohibitions  to  wash, 
bathe  and  greet  acquaintances  have  lost  all  significance  and 
religious  meaning  for  our  time,  nay  more,  they  are  incon- 
sistent with  our  religious  sentiment,  and  are  therefore  to  be 
abolished.  The  Conference  declared  it  to  be  advisable  that 
the  mourner  remain  at  home  during  the  first  three  days, 
counting  from  the  day  of  burial  (instead  of  the  first  seven 
as  hitherto),  in  as  far  as  this  is  compatible  with  the  higher 
duties  of  life  and  considerations  of  health.  Further,  the 
conference  advised  that  the  mourner  close  his  business  al- 
together on  the  day  of  burial  if  at  all  possible,  and  that  on 
the  two  following  days  he  himself  abstain  from  participa- 
tion in  his  business,  although  others  may  conduct  it  for 
him. 

Reform  of  Marriage  Laws.— At  the  Brunswick  Confer- 
ence a  Commission  had  been  appointed  to  revise  the  Jew- 
ish marriage  laws.  This  Commission  did  not  report  at  the 
Frankfort  conference,  but  a  question  propounded  to  this 
Conference  for  solution  by  the  congregation  of  Bingen  was 
referred  to  it.  The  question  touched  the  method  of  recon- 
ciliation of  the  Jewish  and  the  civil  marriage  and  divorce 
laws. 1  Also  at  the  third  Conference  the  Commission  did 
not  report,  except  briefly  at  the  last  session,  when  they 
craved  the  indulgence  of  the  Conference  for  longer  time 
because  of  the  importance  of  the  work  submitted  to  them. 
However,  several  times  during  the  session  the  subject  of 
the  marriage  laws  came  to  the  fore.  At  the  opening  meet- 
ing Holdheim  submitted  a  resolution 2  to  the  effect  that  the 
Conference  devote  attention  to  a  number  of  points  in  the 
traditional  marriage  laws  which  required  reform,  revis- 

1  ProtoTcolle  der  zwciten  Bdbbinerversammlung ,  189,  222. 
2Protol'olle  der  dritten  Edbbinerversammlung ,  9-11. 


308  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ion  and  change. x  At  the  closing  meeting  the  Commission 
on  marriage  laws  recommended  that  the  old  institution  of 
Chalitzah  be  declared  unsuited  to  modern  conditions,  be- 
cause "the  levirate  marriage  and  the  chalitzah  were  insti- 
tuted in  a  time  when  the  views  on  the  position  of  woman, 
the  family  rights,  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  individual 
were  entirely  different  from  what  they  are  now.  They  had 
their  origin  under  different  social  conditions,  and  they  are 
not  only  improper,  but  unjustified,  under  the  entirely  differ- 
ent views  and  conditions  of  to-day— nay,  they  are  an  insult 
to  the  free  personality  of  woman,  an  insult  to  the  religion ; 
they  are  dangerous  fetters  which  must  be  loosed."  The 
Commission  therefore  offered  the  resolution,  "That  the 
Conference  declare  that  no  other  conditions  are  necessary 
for  the  re-marriage  of  a  childless  widow  than  for  any  other 
Jewish  marriages. " 2  No  definite  action  however  was 
taken  on  this  recommendation. 

The  Position  of  Woman.— At  the  Frankfort  Confer- 
ence a  Commission  had  been  appointed  to  report  on  the 
religious  duties  of  woman  in  the  light  of  the  change  of 
modern  thought  on  her  position.  The  Commission  reported 
at  the  Breslau  Conference  as  follows: 

We  recommend  that  the  rabbinical  Conference  declare 
woman  to  be  entitled  to  the  same  religious  rights  and  sub- 
ject to  the  same  religious  duties  as  man,  and  in  accordance 
herewith  make  the  following  pronouncements: 

1.  That  women  are  obliged  to  perform  such  religious 
acts  as  depend  on  a  fixed  time, 3  in  as  far  as  such  acts  have 
significance  for  our  religious  consciousness. 

1  These  suggestions  were  embodied  in  a  pamphlet  which  he  had 
issued  the  preceding  year  entitled  "Vorschlage  zu  einer  zeitgemassen 
Beform  der  jiidischen  Ehegesetze  der  nachaten  Rabbinerversamm- 
lung  zur  Priifung  iibergeben. "  Schwerin,  1845. 

a  Protolcolle,  298. 

8  ra  noi^  t»Tnt?  mstt  in  contradiction  of  the  Talmudical  prin- 
ciple, which  holds  the  opposite.  Talm.  Bab.  Qidd.,  29  b. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846          3Q9 

2.  That  woman  must  perform  all  duties  towards  chil- 
dren in  the  same  measure  as  man. 

3.  That  neither  the  husband  nor  the   father  has  the 
right  to  release  from  her  vow  a  daughter  or  a  wife  who  has 
reached  her  religious  majority. 

4.  That  the  benediction   HPN  'JEW  fctfp  (Praised  be  thou, 
0  Lord  our  God,  who  hast  not  made  me  a  woman),  which 
owed  its  origin  to  the  belief  in  the  religious  inferiority  of 
woman  be  abolished. 

5.  That  the  female  sex  is  obligated^  f rom  youth  up  to 
participate  in  religious  instruction  and  the  public  relig- 
ious service  and  be  counted  for  minyan;    and,  finally, 

6.  That  the  religious  majority  of  both  sexes  begin  with 
the  thirteenth  year. * 

Unfortunately  this  important  and  interesting  report  could 
not  be  discussed  owing  to  lack  of  time.  It  was  merely  read 
at  the  last  session  but  one.  In  practice,  however,  these  first 
recommendations  on  this  subject  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
movement  have  been  carried  out  in  reform  congregations 
notably  in  the  United  States,  where,  with  the  abolition  of 
the  woman's  gallery  in  the  synagogue  and  the  introduction 
of  family  pews,  much  more  decided  steps  forward  have 
been  taken.  Woman 's  religious  equality  with  man  is  fully 
recognized  in  reform  congregations.  Einhorn  in  present- 
ing this  report  reviewed  the  whole  subject  of  the  position 
of  woman  in  Judaism,  pointing  out  her  inferiority  in  the 
public  religious  functions  from  the  Biblical,  Talmudical 
and  rabbinical  standpoint,  and  closed  characteristically  as 
follows :  * '  It  is  our  sacred  duty  to  declare  with  all  emphasis 
the  complete  religious  equality  of  woman  with  man  in  view 
of  the  religious  standpoint  that  we  represent  according  to 
which  an  equal  degree  of  natural  holiness  inheres  in  all 
people,  the  distinctions  in  Sacred  Writ  having  therefore 
only  relative  and  momentary  significance.  Life  which  is 
stronger  than  all  theory  has  already  accomplished  some- 
*Prot.,  265. 


310  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

thing  in  this  respect;  but  much  is  still  wanting  for  com- 
plete equality  and  even  the  little  that  has  been  achieved 
lacks  still  legal  sanction.  It  is  therefore  our  mission  to 
make  legal  declaration  of  the  equal  religious  obligation  and 
justification  of  woman  in  as  far  as  this  is  possible ;  we  have 
the  same  right  to  do  this  as  had  the  synod  under  Rabbenu 
Gershom  eight  hundred  years  ago  which  passed  new  re- 
ligious decrees  in  favor  of  the  female  sex.  The  Talmud 
says  in  reference  to  the  ntlTD  command  fctf  'BO  "Pi  'JD  'isa 
"PI  'JD;  let  us  interpret  this  principle  in  a  much  higher 
sense  by  applying  it  to  the  religious  life  and  thus  enable 
our  congregations  to  make  use  of  powers  that  have  been 
alienated  only  too  long. ' ' 1 

Rabbinical  Seminary.— The  Commission  appointed  at 
the  Frankfort  Conference  to  present  a  plan  for  the  foun- 
dation of  a  rabbinical  seminary  reported  at  this  Conference 
that  an  event  had  taken  place  during  the  past  year  which 
promised  to  make  possible  the  opening  of  such  an  institu- 
tion much  sooner  than  any  of  them  had  hoped  would  prove 
the  case.  Mr.  J.  Frankel,  a  wealthy  Jew  of  Breslau,  who 
had  died  recently  had  left  provision  in  his  will  for  the 
foundation  of  a  rabbinical  seminary;  upon  being  apprised 
of  this  the  Commission  had  addressed  a  communication  to 
the  executors  of  the  will  informing  them  of  the  step  the 
Conference  had  taken  in  this  matter  and  offering  the  assist- 
ance of  the  Conference  in  carrying  out  the  work.2  The 
Commission  reported  further  that  they  had  had  a  personal 
interview  with  the  executors,  and  had  received  the  assur- 
ance from  the  latter  that  they  would  take  pleasure  in  giv- 
ing the  fullest  consideration  to  the  suggestions  of  the  Con- 
ference. The  account  of  the  well-known  rabbinical  sem- 
inary of  Breslau,  the  institution  which  Frankel 's  munifi- 
cent bequest  called  into  being,  does  not  belong  here;  suffi- 
cient to  say  that  the  first  practical  suggestions  for  such  an 

1  Protolcolle,  265. 
*Prot.,  292. 


THE   RABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846         3H 

institution  emanated  from  the  rabbinical  Conferences  upon 
the  initiative  chiefly  of  Philippson  and  Geiger. 

As  was  the  case  with  the  two  preceding  Conferences  so 
also  did  the  Breslau  Conference  arouse  a  storm  of  opposi- 
tion, with  this  difference,  however,  that  while  the  Bruns- 
wick and  Frankfort  Conferences  had  been  denounced 
chiefly  by  the  orthodox,  the  Breslau  Conference  called  forth 
the  scorn  of  the  radicals ;  truth  to  say,  the  third  conference 
seemed  to  satisfy  no  party;  its  compromising  attitude  put 
it  out  of  favor  with  both  extremes ; 1  it  was  notably  the 
Sabbath  discussion  and  resolutions  which  were  made  to 
bear  the  brunt  of  the  attacks;  the  other  discussions  and 
resolutions  were  passed  over  almost  altogether.  The  Con- 
ference had  scarcely  adjourned  ere  the  public  press  began 
to  teem  with  denunciatory  articles,  notably  the  Deutsche 
Allgemeine  Zeitung,  the  Frankfurter  Journal,  and  the 
Oberpostamtszeitung;  most  of  these  articles  were  repub- 
lished  in  the  Jewish  press.  The  first  gun  was  fired  from 
Frankfort;  the  issue  of  the  Frankfurter  Journal  of  Aug- 
ust, 1846  (No.  219 ),2  contained  a  bitter  arraignment  of 
the  Breslau  Conference  by  twelve  Jews  of  the  City  on  the 
Main;  it  opened  with  the  words,  "the  third  rabbinical  Con- 
ference has  lost  the  confidence  of  the  German  Jews,  and  it 
is  time  that  the  friends  of  progress  in  Judaism  assemble 
and  declare  openly  and  freely  this  fact,  felt  by  all  and 
denied  by  none. ' '  The  letter  called  the  rabbis  reactionary, 
not  representative  of  the  progressive  spirit  ruling  in  Ger- 
man congregations,  desirous  of  assuming  hierarchical 
authority,  etc.  The  neglect  of  the  Conference  to  declare 
for  the  transfer  of  the  Saturday  to  the  Sunday  as  the  only 
solution  of  the  problem  was  the  cause  of  this  diatribe,  as 
appeared  from  the  close  of  the  communication. 

1 ' '  The  assembly  shares  the  fate  of  all  public  bodies  which  follow 
expediency  instead  of  principle;  whilst  it  goes  too  far  for  the  one, 
it  does  too  little  for  the  other."  Voice  of  Jacob,  VI,  11. 

-  Reprinted  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  505-508. 


312  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

This  arraignment  called  forth  a  number  of  answers  in 
defense  of  the  Conference,  viz.,  from  Leopold  Stein,  the 
rabbi  of  Frankfort ; x  from  the  congregation  of  Alzey, 2  and 
from  B.  Wechsler,  the  rabbi  of  Oldenburg  in  the  Bremer 
Zeitung  of  Aug.  18. 3 

A  second  attack  by  Frankfort  Jews,  supposedly  members 
of  the  defunct  Reform  Society,  declared  that  the  Breslau 
Conference  had  gone  backward ;  that  whereas  the  first  two 
Conferences  were  animated  by  the  reform  progressive 
spirit,  the  Breslau  Conference  was  characterized  by  rab- 
binical casuistry ;  4  this,  too,  was  answered  by  Stein. 5 

Holdheim,  too,  voiced  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  radical 
element  in  a  number  of  open  letters. 6  He  stated  that  the 
dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  the  liberals  was  justified,  but 
that  this  dissatisfaction  was  due,  not  so  much  to  the  results, 
as  to  the  spirit  that  pervaded  the  transactions;  ...  the 
Conference  had  lost  its  place  as  a  guiding  influence  in  Jew- 
ish life  which  it  had  maintained  in  the  two  former  meet- 
ings. At  Frankfort  it  had  taken  the  bold  position  that  the 
Hebrew  language  was  not  an  absolute  requirement  for  the 
services  although  it  had  stated  that  its  partial  retention 
was  advisable  under  present  conditions.  It  had  not  said 
that  it  must  wait  with  a  declaration  on  this  question  until 
the  whole  community  of  Israel  had  come  to  this  conclusion ; 
it  led.  How  different  its  attitude  on  the  Sabbath  ques- 

1  In  the  same  newspaper  and  reprinted  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  524. 

2  Hid.,  X,  527.  8  See  also  Hid.,  528. 

4  Published  first  in  Frankfurter  Journal  and  reprinted  A.  Z.  d,  J., 
X,  530-1. 

5 Ibid.,  573-74;  see  also  a  further  article  by  Stein,  "Die  Eabbiner- 
versammlung,  ein  Wort  zur  Verstandigung  an  alle  welche  sich  fur 
dieselbe  interessiren,  "I.  N.  J.,  VII,  209 ;  cf .  also  Geiger,  Nachgelas- 
sene  Schriften,  V,  192. 

6  Offene  Brief e  uber  die  dritte  Eabbinerversammlung,  I.  N.  J., 
VII,  361-364,  369-372,  377-380.  See  also  an  anonymous  article, 
"Ein  Dialog  uber  die  dritte  Eabbinerversammlung, "  ibid.,  289-292, 
297-300. 


THE   EABBINICAL   CONFERENCES,   1844-1846         313 

tion  at  Breslau!  Here  it  feared  to  take  the  initiative  by 
declaring  for  the  only  possible  solution,  the  transfer ;  what 
if  the  community  at  large  was  not  ready  for  it;  it  had  to 
come  if  Judaism  was  to  be  saved.  The  Conference  should 
be  the  organ,  not  merely  of  present-day  but  also  of  future 
Judaism,  and  should  give  voice  not  alone  to  present  con- 
victions, but  point  the  way  to  the  future. 

Geiger,  the  president  of  the  Conference,  was  moved, 
chiefly  because  of  these  attacks,  to  write  two  lengthy  de- 
fenses of  the  work  of  the  Conference  before  the  official  pub- 
lication of  the  proceedings  appeared.  Occasional  refer- 
ences have  already  been  made  to  both  these  pamphlets.1  In 
the  former  of  these  pamphlets  he  reviewed  the  work  of  the 
rabbinical  Conferences  in  general ;  of  this  he  said  that  they 
sought  "to  clear  away  abuses,  to  breathe  into  Judaism  the 
living  spirit  and  make  it  susceptible  of  forms  suitable  for 
our  time ;  further,  the  Conferences  stand  also  for  the  his- 
torical development  of  Judaism,  building  on  the  past  and 
preparing  for  the  future.  In  this  spirit  the  Breslau  Con- 
ference worked  also. ' '  In  the  second  pamphlet  he  met  the 
attacks  on  the  attitude  of  the  Conference  on  the  Sabbath 
question.  He  stated  that  it  was  the  most  pressing  ques- 
tion of  the  time,  and  the  Conference  had  to  consider  it.  It 
would  have  been  cowardly  to  evade  it  as  many  say  the  Con- 
ference should  have  done.  The  Conference  could  not  pos- 
sibly suggest  the  transfer  to  Sunday;  an  institution  of 
Judaism  that  has  existed  for  thousands  of  years  and  is  one 
of  its  very  fundamentals  cannot  be  legislated  out  of  existence 
by  a  rabbinical  Conference.  As  for  a  service  on  Sunday, 
there  can  certainly  be  no  objection  to  a  supplemental  serv- 
ice as  long  as  it  is  not  a  Sabbath  service,  and  any  congre- 
gation can  institute  it;  but  many  fear  that  it  is  only  the 

1  Vorlaufiger  Bericht  uber  die  ThdtigTceit  der  dritten  Versamm- 
lung  deutscher  Eabbiner.  Breslau,  1844. 

Die  dritte  Versammlung  deutscher  Rabbiner,  ein  vorlaufiges  Wort 
zur  Verstdndigung.  Breslau,  1846. 


314  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

opening  wedge  to  a  complete  transfer.  The  Conference, 
although  asked  to  pronounce  upon  the  permissibility  of  a 
service  on  Sunday  for  the  benefit  of  such  as  do  not  attend! 
on  Saturday,  postponed  consideration  of  this  question; 
but  it  is  only  postponed;  the  Conference  will  have  to  take 
it  up  next  year  or  some  other  time. 

However,  this  was  not  to  be ;  no  further  conference  was 
convened.  When  the  Breslau  Conference  adjourned,  it 
was  with  the  full  expectation  that  the  yearly  meetings 
would  continue.  Geiger,  in  a  letter  to  the  dissatisfied  rad- 
ical element,  said : ' '  Let  us  prepare  for  future  Conferences ; 
the  task  before  us  is  great ;  let  us  aim  to  accomplish  this  in 
unity  and  mutual  understanding. ' ' 1  The  executive  com- 
mittee appointed  at  the  Breslau  Conference  took  steps 
towards  convening  the  next  Conference  at  Mannheim. 
This  conference  was  not  held,  because  the  consent  of  the 
government  was  not  received  in  time  to  convene  the  meet- 
ing on  the  appointed  date. 2  The  executive  committee  re- 
quested opinions  from  members  whether  they  would  attend 
a  meeting  to  be  held  at  a  later  day  in  that  year.  After 
receiving  a  negative  reply  from  twelve,  the  committee  issued 
a  notice  that  the  next  Conference  would  be  held  July  17, 
1848.3  The  permission  to  hold  the  Conference  at  Mann- 
heim was  received  from  the  Government  of  Baden  on  March 
3,  1848.  The  executive  committee,  consisting  of  H.  Wag- 
ner, S.  Adler,  A.  Adler,  S.  Formstecher,  and  L.  Stein  ad- 
dressed a  communication  to  the  members  of  the  Conference 
dated  Worms,  July  24,  1848,  in  which  they  say,  after 
mentioning  the  fact  that  they  had  received  the  consent  of 
the  government  of  Baden  to  hold  the  Conference  at  Mann- 
heim, that  they  did  not  consider  it  feasible  to  take  advan- 
tage of  this  belated  permission,  since  they  were  of  the 

1  Sendschreiben  an  die  lobliche  Beddktion  des  Israelit  des  neun- 
zehnten  Jahrhunderts,  VII,  397. 

2  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  VT,  170. 
8  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  608. 


THE  EABBTNICAL   CONFEEENCES,   1844-1846         315 

opinion  that  the  rabbinical  Conference  no  longer  met  the 
needs  of  the  Jewish  situation;  "the  people  should  and  must 
have  a  voice  in  the  deliberations  and  decisions ; ' '  therefore 
they  proposed  that  a  synod  be  convened  to  take  the  place 
of  the  Conference,  and  that  both  rabbis  and  laymen  partic- 
ipate in  this  synod. 1  Hence,  the  Conference  at  Breslau 
proved  to  be  the  last  reform  rabbinical  Conference  to  be 
held  in  Germany  till  1868,  when  the  Cassel  Conference  took 
place. 

The  rabbinical  Conferences  of  1844,  1845,  and  1846  will 
remain  for  all  time  among  the  most  remarkable  gatherings 
in  the  history  of  Judaism.  It  was  here  that  the  great 
truth  received  public  expression  that  Judaism  contained 
in  itself  the  power  of  adaptation  to  changing  needs  and 
conditions  of  life  in  the  successive  ages  of  the  world's 
progress.  It  was  here  that  the  spirit  of  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tion and  the  spirit  of  modernity  met  each  other  face  to 
face  in  public  view  and  became  welded  in  firm  embrace. 
The  Conferences  pretended  to  no  hierarchical  authority ; 2 
they  furnished  the  platform  for  the  discussion  of  the  vexing 
problems  in  Jewish  life.  That  they  did  not  solve  all  these 
problems  does  not  militate  against  their  importance  and 
usefulness,  for  indeed  Geiger  was  correct  when,  towards 
the  close  of  his  defense  of  the  Breslau  Conference,  he  wrote : 
' '  The  rabbinical  Conference  is  the  most  powerful  agent  for 
progress  in  Judaism,  the  institution  which  will  show  itself 
more  and  more  capable  of  meeting  the  needs  of  our  relig- 
ious conditions. ' ' 3  It  is  an  eternal  pity  that  circumstances 
prevented  their  perpetuation ;  true,  it  is  vain  to  attempt  to 
describe  what  might  have  been ;  but  this  much  may  be  said 
that  of  all  the  early  results  of  the  reform  movement  the 
rabbinical  Conferences  of  the  fifth  decade  have  gone  down 
into  history  as  the  most  characteristic  expression  of  that 

IA.  z.  a.  j.,  xn,  470. 

1  Protokolle  der  dritten  Versammlung  deutscher  Rabbiner,  266. 
*Ein  vorlaufiges  Wort,  12. 


316  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

task  at  which  the  present  generation  is  still  laboring,  viz., 
the  interpretation  of  the  principles  of  Judaism  in  the  light 
of  modern  conditions  and  the  garbing  of  its  eternal  truths 
in  expressions  and  institutions  that  are  of  the  age  and 
generation;  in  other  words,  the  emphasizing  of  the  all-im- 
portant truth  that  Judaism  spells  development  and  not 
stagnation,  for  this  is  the  intent  and  content  of  the  reform 
movement. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  KEFOKM  CONGBEGATION  OF  BEELIN 

THE  governmental  edict  of  Dec.  9,  1823,  forbidding  all 
changes  and  innovations  in  the  ritual  and  liturgy,  had 
checked  effectively  all  efforts  among  the  Jews  of  the  Prus- 
sian capital  to  institute  reforms. 1  During  the  twenty 
years  following  the  closing  of  the  Beer  reform  synagogue  2 
the  progressive  religious  tendencies  received  no  public  ex- 
pression. The  voices  of  the  new  time  were  given  heed  to 
in  many  a  small  community,  but  the  official  heads  of  the 
metropolitan  congregation  of  Germany  disregarded  their 
insistent  cry.  And  that,  too,  though  it  was  very  apparent 
that  the  religious  affairs  were  in  a  chaotic  condition.  Hun- 
dreds were  alienated  from  the  synagogues.  Indifference 
and  irreligion  ran  riot.  The  tragedy  of  the  conflict  of  the 
old  with  the  new  appeared  in  many  ways;  thus  the  repre- 
sentatives of  rabbinical  Judaism  discountenanced  not 
merely  liturgical  reforms  in  the  public  service  but  resisted 
every  innovation  demanded  by  the  new  outlook  of  latter- 
day  man ;  e.  g.,  they  refused  to  countenance  such  things  as 
the  vaccination  of  children,  attendance  at  secular  schools, 
abolition  of  rabbinical  courts,  military  service,  the  elapsing 
of  an  interval  of  more  than  twenty-four  hours  between 
death  and  burial,  and  the  like ;  they  even  took  stand  against 
political  emancipation  because  it  did  not  comport  with  the 
traditions. 3  No  wonder  that  alienation  was  the  result  of 

1Geiger,  Juden  in  Berlin,  234.  2  Supra,  36. 

8  See  a  communication  from  Cassel  which  states  that  Seligman 
Bar  Bamberger,  the  renowned  orthodox  rabbi  of  Wiirzburg,  thus 
expressed  himself,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  56. 

317 


318  THE  KEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

this  policy  of  the  powers  that  were  in  Jewry.  Nowhere  in 
Germany  were  the  Jews  swept  along  by  the  currents  of  the 
new  time  as  they  were  in  Berlin.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  reform  movement  would  have  found  strong  and 
unequivocal  public  expression  there  long  before  1845  had 
it  not  been  for  the  reactionary  attitude  of  the  government. 
The  indifference  of  the  cultivated  Jew  of  Berlin  was  due 
without  question  in  great  part  to  the  fact  that  adaptation 
of  the  Jewish  cult  to  modern  conceptions  was  made  diffi- 
cult, not  only  by  this  attitude  of  the  Jewish  religious 
authorities,  but  also  by  the  policy  of  the  state.  In  the 
fifth  decade  a  more  liberal  spirit  actuated  governmental 
circles, *  and  the  result  was  that  the  reform  movement, 
smothered  for  twenty  years,  broke  forth  into  flaming  activ- 
ity. 

In  1840  and  thereabouts  the  Jews  of  Berlin  might  have 
been  divided  broadly  into  three  classes:  the  orthodox,  who 
observed  every  minute  command  of  the  rabbinical  tradi- 
tional code  and  arranged  their  life  accordingly;  the  hypo- 
crites, " official  Jews,"  who  in  their  private  lives  disre- 
garded the  ceremonies,  but  demanded  that  they  be  observed 
publicly  and  officially,  2  and  the  indifferentists  who  had 
drifted  from  Jewish  moorings  because  there  was  nothing 
in  the  synagogue  to  hold  them. 3  True,  all  Jews  who  had 

1  See  the  important  compilation  of  the  ordinances  of  the  Prussian 
government  touching  the  Jews,  beginning  with  the  famous  Juden- 
reglement  of  1750,  under  the  heading  Die  Tcirchlichen  Verhaltnisse  der 
Juden   in   Preussen   in    Freund's    Zur   Judenfrage   in   Deutschland 
(Berlin,  1843),  117-124,  185-195;  also  Ministerial  Fragen  das  judische 
Kultus  und  Schulwesen  betreffend,  ibid.,  196-212. 

2  For   a  description  of  this  class  as   the  most  active  enemies  of 
reform  see  the  article  Welche  sind  die  wirlcsamsten  feinde  der  Ee- 
form?  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X  (1846),  142. 

8  S.  Stern,  Die  Gegenwdrtige  Bewegung  im  Judenthum,  Berlin, 
1845,  18,  35.  An  excellent  delineation  of  religious  conditions  in 
Berlin  Jewry  at  this  time  is  given  in  David  Honigmann's  "Auf- 
zeiehnungen  aus  seinen  Studentenjahren, "  1841-5,  published  in  Jdhr- 
buch  -fur  judische  Geschichte  und  Literatur,  VII,  177.  Berlin,  1904. 


THE  KEFOBM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEELIN     319 

not  renounced  their  faith  were  ipso  facto  members  of  the 
congregation ;  but  hundreds  were  Jews  only  in  name.  They 
never  attended  the  services,  though  by  the  law  they  were 
compelled  to  contribute  to  the  congregation;  no  trace  of 
Judaism  was  visible  in  their  homes  or  in  their  lives.  The 
officials  of  the  congregation  had  been  very  derelict  in 
neglecting  to  take  any  steps  that  might  have  prevented,  or 
if  not  prevented  this  condition,  at  least  have  given  no 
justification  for  it.  There  was  no  provision  whatsoever 
made  for  presenting  the  teachings  of  Judaism  in  an  intel- 
ligible manner.  A  sermon  in  the  vernacular  was  an  un- 
known quantity  in  the  Berlin  synagogue.  No  school  was 
supported  by  the  congregation  for  the  religious  instruction 
of  the  children.  *  What  wonder,  then,  that  Judaism  was 
foreign  to  the  lives  and  thoughts  of  many  who  might  have 
been  actively  concerned  in  its  welfare  had  proper  efforts 
been  put  forth  to  reach  them.  But  even  the  directory  of 
the  Berlin  congregation  could  not  remain  altogether  blind 
to  the  necessities  of  the  situation.  In  the  opening  years 
of  the  forties  they  endeavored  to  secure  a  rabbi  of  modern 
training  and  education;  after  negotiating  with  a  number 
of  men  of  prominence,  notably  Zacharias  Frankel 2  they 

Honigmann  writes:  "The  religious  conditions  in  the  Berlin  com- 
munity might  be  said  to  have  been  rotten  in  many  respects.  While 
the  obstinate  strict  conservative  party  offered  the  most  stiff-necked 
resistance  to  even  the  most  innocent  innovation  which  was  sought  to 
be  introduced  in  order  to  pay  some  slight  tribute  to  aesthetic  and 
intellectual  needs,  on  the  other  hand,  all  who  had  remained  faithful 
to  the  spirit  and  essence  of  Judaism,  and  longed  for  an  inner  regen- 
eration of  its  eternal  ideas  and  their  fusion  with  the  higher  religious 
consciousness  of  the  present,  found  no  true  satisfaction  in  an  external 
restoration  of  the  ceremonial  institutions,  even  though  they  were  in 
modern  garb." 

1  Jost,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  X,  part  3,  189.     Geiger,  Juden  in 
Berlin,  246-7. 

2  The  negotiations  with  Frankel  came  to  naught  because  the  Dres- 
den rabbi  could  not  obtain  from  Eichhorn,  the  Minister  of  Public 
Worship,  the  assurance  ''that  he  should  be  recognized  by  the  state 


320  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

finally  elected  M.  Sachs,  of  Prague,  in  1844  as  assistant 
rabbi  and  preacher.  Sachs  was  a  superb  preacher,  and  the 
hope  was  entertained  that  his  coming  to  Berlin  would  weld 
the  discordant  elements  into  unity  and  give  the  congrega- 
tion that  standing  among  the  congregations  of  Germany 
which  it  should  have  had  owing  to  its  commanding  posi- 
tion. But  Sachs'  coming,  far  from  making  for  the  peace- 
ful amalgamation  of  all  parties  in  the  community,  became 
the  occasion  for  the  accentuating  of  the  well-nigh  irrecon- 
cilable differences. 1  Sachs  was  strongly  conservative ;  for 
him  Talmud  and  Shulchan  Aruk  were  norm  and  authority. 
His  influence  and  his  magnificent  pulpit  gifts  were  arrayed 
on  the  side  of  tradition;  he  had  no  sympathy  with  the  re- 
form tendencies  that  were  so  strong  in  Germany  at  that 
time.  His  decided  stand  for  traditionalism  and  the  reten- 
tion of  the  rabbinical  status  quo  in  Judaism  2  aroused  to 
active  effort  the  men  in  whom  the  spirit  of  Jacobson,  Herz 
Beer,  Kley  and  Auerbach,  the  promoters  of  the  earliest 
efforts  at  reform  in  Berlin  before  the  year  1823  was  re- 
newed. As  that  earlier  movement  was  allied  intimately 
with  a  society  for  the  advancement  of  Jewish  culture,  3  so 
was  the  second  effort  at  the  establishment  of  a  reform  con- 
gregation in  Berlin  connected  with  a  similar  society;  al- 
though this  connection  was  not  intended  consciously  at  the 
time  of  the  formation  of  the  society,  still,  as  will  be  seen, 

as  the  chief  rabbi  of  a  religious  community  to  whom  the  guidance  of 
their  spiritual  affairs  would  be  entrusted."  The  attitude  of  the 
Prussian  state  toward  Judaism  was  that  it  was  merely  tolerated  and 
its  confessors  had  no  eccliastical  officials;  the  rabbis  had  no  standing 
as  spiritual  chiefs,  but  simply  as  Kausherwachter,  supra,  36-7.  For  the 
negotiations  between  Frankel  and  the  officers  of  the  Berlin  congre- 
gation, see  the  interesting  correspondence  edited  by  S.  Bernfeld  in 
Allegemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  LXII  (1898),  343-6,  356-8, 
368-70,  389-91,  404,  437-9,  461-2,  486-8,  536-8,  569-70,  582-3,  595-7, 
606-8. 

1  Jost,  Geschichte  der  Israeliten,  X,  part  3,  188. 

2  7.  N.  J.,  VI,  181. 

3  Verein  fur  die  Wissenscliaft  des  Judenthums,  supra,  38. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN     321 

the  society  offered  the  forum  where  were  presented  the 
thoughts  that  led  to  the  organization  of  the  reform  congre- 
gation. 

On  January  1,  1841,  a  number  of  men  issued  a  pamphlet 
containing  the  statutes  and  a  description  of  the  aims  of  the 
recently  formed  "Cultur  Verein."     These  aims  were  said 
to  be  the  encouragement  and  the  furtherance  of  literary 
and  artistic  efforts  among  Jews   and  by  the  offering  of 
prizes  for  essays  upon  such  subjects  x  to  assist  in  the  solu- 
tion of  the  contemporaneous  difficulties  that  were  perplex- 
ing Jewry.     The  governing  board  of  this  society  included 
names  which  were  already  famous  or  destined  to  become 
so  in  future  years,  viz.,  Dr.  J.  L.  Auerbach,  A.  Bernstein, 
Dr.  M.  Joel,  Dr.  Kubo,  Dr.  H.  Steinthal,  Dr.  S.  Stern,  Dr. 
M.  Veit,  Dr.  L.  Zunz.     The  first  subject  selected  by  the 
society  for  prize  competition  indicated  the  trend  of  thought 
of  its  guiding  spirits.     This  subject  was  "What  was,  what 
is   and  what  should  the   rabbi   be  ? " 2     Undoubtedly   the 
agitation  in  the  Berlin  community  that  culminated  in  the 
selection  of  Sachs  was  the  cause  for  the  choice  of  this  sub- 
ject.    The  "Culture  Society"  desired  to  mold  the  thought 
of  the  community.     The  very  form  in  which  the  subject 
was  put  shows  that  the  officers  of  this  society  recognized 
that  the  functions  of  the  rabbi  of  aforetimes  and  the  rabbi 
of  the  present  were  not  the  same.     Further,  it  is  not  a  mere 
coincidence  that  some  of  the  foremost  organizers  of  the  re- 
form congregation  were  officers  of  this  culture  society,  viz., 
A.  Bernstein,  S.  Stern,  J.  L.  Auerbach,   Carl  Heymann. 
Philip  Heilbronn  and  Ludwig  Lesser.     This  society  in  its 
manifesto  had  declared  that  one  of  its  purposes  was  "to 
offer  any  one  the  opportunity  to  show  actively  his  interest 
in  the  progress  of  Judaism,  which  was  apparent  everywhere 
of  recent  years."    It  became  the  center  for  the  intellectual 

1  Statuten     des     Culturvereins.     Berlin,     1841.       Israelitisclie    An- 
nalen,  III  (1841),  177,  179. 

2  Was  war,  was  ist,  und  was  soil  der  Edb~biner  sein?    Ibid.,  241. 

21 


322  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  ju*  JUDAISM 

elite  of  Berlin  Jewry.  The  account  of  its  doings  does  not 
belong  here.  In  1844,  however,  an  event  took  place  under 
its  auspices  which  led  to  unexpected  results.  This  was 
the  delivery  of  the  course  of  lectures  by  Dr.  Sigismund 
Stern  on  "The  Mission  of  Judaism  and  the  Jew  in  the 
Present."1 

Before  these  lectures,  which  brought  the  renewed  efforts 
of  the  reformers  to  a  focus,  were  delivered,  it  was  apparent 
that  the  same  conditions  which  led  to  the  formation  of  the 
reform  society  of  Frankfort  were  prevalent  in  Berlin;  a 
reconciliation  of  JeAvish  life  and  profession  was  longed  for ; 
a  casting  of  the  teachings  of  Judaism  in  a  modern  mold  was 
passionately  desired.  The  indifference  of  so  many  of  the 
cultured  class  was  due,  not  always  to  lack  of  interest  in  the 
religion,  but  to  the  impossibility  of  accepting  Judaism  in 
its  Talmudical  and  rabbinical  garb.  The  sentiments  and 
longings  of  this  element  of  Berlin  Jewry  were  given  ex- 
pression to  by  two  of  its  number  2  in  the  remarkable  essays, 
"Our  Present  Age,"3  by  A.  Kebenstein,  and  "The  Mission 
of  the  Jewish  Congregation  of  Berlin  for  the  Present," 
by  S.  Stern.4  Kebenstein 's  5  essay  is  a  keen  diagnosis  of 
the  conditions  among  the  Jews ;  he  pleads  passionately  for 
a  true  reform  of  Judaism,  a  reform  which  should  be  neither 
revolution  nor  restoration.  "The  moral-religious  stand- 
point is  that  upon  which  theology  must  be  based.  In  ac- 

1  Die  Aufgabe  des  Judenthums  und  des  Juden  in  der  Gegenwart. 

a  I.  H.  Ritter,  Die  jiidische  Eeformgemeinde  zu  Berlin,  50.  Berlin, 
1902. 

3Unsere  Gegenwart  in  Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland, 
II,  7-25,  65-102. 

4  Die  Aufgabe   der  jiidischen  Gemeinde  zu  Berlin  fur  die  Gegen- 
wart, ibid.,  26-41,  123-136,  413-434. 

5  This  brilliant  writer  is  know  also  as  Bernstein ;  he  seems  to  have 
used    both    names    indiscriminately.     He    wrote    extensively    in    the 
Jewish  press,  edited  for  a  short  time  a  periodical,  Die  Reform  des 
Judenthums,  but  is  known  chiefly  in  Jewish  literature  by  his  two 
f amous  ghetto  novels,  * '  Vb'gele  der  Maggid ' '  and  ' '  Mendel  Gibbor. ' ' 
For  a  sympathetic  estimate  see  David  Honigman,  op.  cit. 


THE  REFOBM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEBLIN     323 

cordance  with  this  standpoint  theology  can  and  must  pre- 
serve and  fortify  in  the  life  of  the  Jews  such  ceremonies  and 
symbols  as  still  testify  to  the  God-consciousness  of  the 
people  and  fortify  and  strengthen  this;  it  must  remove 
such  ceremonies  as  have  ceased  to  further  the  life  of  Juda- 
ism and  must  change  that  which  has  been  distorted  in  the 
course  of  the  ages.  This  is  the  standpoint  upon  which 
theology  can  repel  with  justice  all  violent  attacks  upon  the 
living  organism,  and  can  with  no  less  justification  accept 
for  itself  reform  and  reorganization."  Stern  deplores  the 
chaotic  condition  of  affairs  in  the  congregation  and  the  lack 
of  communal  spirit ;  he  bewails  the  fact  that  no  activity  is 
apparent  in  this  great  congregation  when  so  many  smaller 
communities  had  taken  steps  to  introduce  reforms;  he 
argues  that  it  is  the  mission  of  the  community  as  a  com- 
munity to  overcome  the  disintegrating  effects  of  the  ram- 
pant individualism  that  was  apparent  and  to  take  its  legiti- 
mate place  as  the  leader  in  German  Jewish  life.  In  the 
light  of  later  events  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Stern  dis- 
countenances in  this  essay  the  action  of  the  reformers  of 
the  second  decade  in  leaving  the  main  congregation  and 
forming  a  separate  congregation.  Their  duty  was  to  remain 
with  the  main  body  and  to  insist  on  their  right  to  have 
their  religious  needs  satisfied  by  a  service  that  was  ex- 
pressive of  their  religious  conceptions.  In  this  manner  the 
two  important  questions  would  have  been  decided  for  all 
Jewry  as  to  the  right  of  the  individual  in  the  congregation 
to  which  he  belonged  and  in  what  manner  in  general  a 
reform  of  the  cult  was  possible.  These  essays  may  be  con- 
sidered in  the  light  of  forerunners  of  the  later  activity  of 
these  two  men  who  became  the  leading  spirits  in  the  organ- 
ization of  the  congregation  which  cut  out  for  itself  a  new 
channel. 

The  eight  lectures  delivered  by  Stern  during  the  winter 
of  1844-45  before  the  Culfio-  Vcrein  were  the  galvanic 
spark  that  roused  into  life  the  seemingly  moribund  Jewish 


324  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

community.  Stern  made  no  pretentions  to  theological 
learning ; *  his  lectures,  gauged  by  the  measure  of  erudi- 
tion, fall  very  short;  but  they  were  a  lucid  and  thought- 
ful presentation  of  the  conditions  in  the  Jewish  com- 
munity and  brought  home  to  many  of  the  hearers  thoughts 
that  had  not  occurred  to  them  before.  The  hall  in  which 
the  lectures  were  delivered  was  thronged,  and  they  were 
the  sensation  of  the  hour  in  the  Jewish  community.  The 
speaker  had  seized  the  psychological  moment,  and  hun- 
dreds to  whom  Judaism  had  become  merely  a  name  or 
a  memory  and  for  whose  lives  it  had  ceased  to  have  any 
significance  were  electrified  by  the  suggestion  that  this 
faith  of  their  fathers  might  become  also  a  living  force  in 
their  lives  and  the  lives  of  their  children. 2  In  summing 
up  he  said :  ' '  If  you  ask  me  what  we  have  to  do  to  prepare 
for  and  finally  inaugurate  this  new  age  in  Judaism,  I  say 
to  you,  Nothing  more  than  to  banish  that  dull  indifference 
which  bade  us  look  upon  the  disintegration  and  ruin  of 
Judaism  without  concern,  that  indifference  wherewith  we 
renounced  our  rightful  claim  to  the  life  and  development 
of  Judaism,  with  which  we  suffered  the  ever  growing 
alienation  from  our  faith  on  the  part  of  hundreds  who  are 
its  children  until  even  we  appeared  to  be  recreant  and 
faithless  sons  of  Judaism,  and  some  few  of  our  brethren 
designated  themselves  as  its  only  true  and  rightful  heirs. 
We  wish  to  banish  this  indifference  and  step  forth  with  the 
full  and  incontrovertible  demand  upon  our  faith  that  it 

1  Preface  to  the  second  edition  of  the  lectures  in  book  form.     Ber- 
lin, 1853. 

2  The  great  stir  caused  by  these  lectures  is  commented  on  in  the 
three  Jewish  journals  of  the  time,  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Juden- 
thums,  the  Orient,  and  the  Israelit   des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts. 
For    Holdheim's    estimate    of    Stein  >s    addresses    and    services    see 
Geschichte  .  .  .  der  judischen  Beformgemeinde  in  Berlin,  58,   75-6, 
116;  cf.  also  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  178  (letter  to  David 
Honigmann  of  date  March  19,  1845),  and  Ritter  Die  judische  Eeform- 
gemeinde  zu  Berlin,  51. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEELIN  325 

recognize  us  and  our  children  as  the  rightful  bearers  of 
its  name.  We  wish  to  substantiate  our  right  to  live  like 
unto  our  brethren  in  the  house  that  it  has  erected,  and  if 
its  space  is  too  narrow  to  receive  us,  we  would  take  steps  in 
its  name  to  extend  it  so  that  it  give  us  and  our  children  pro- 
tection and  shelter.  Above  all,  we  wish  to  come  forth  pub- 
licly with  our  conviction  and  our  striving  and  to  claim  be- 
fore the  court  of  the  present  the  rights  which  have  been 
withheld  from  us.  We  wish  to  bring  suit  before  the  tri- 
bunal of  history  in  our  name  and  the  name  of  our  children 
for  the  right  to  be  recognized  as  the  true  sons  of  Judaism ; 
and  finally  we  wish  to  work  unitedly  for  the  attainment  of 
the  aim  which  we  feel  called  upon  to  reach,  for  the  realiza- 
tion of  the  mission  which  we  have  recognized  as  the  mission 
of  Judaism. ' ' 1  This  was  an  inspiring  call  to  the  indiffer- 
entists  to  throw  off  their  lethargy  and  band  themselves  to- 
gether for  work  in  the  name  of  a  living  faith ;  it  was  a  re- 
buke to  the  arrogant  claim  of  the  traditionalists  that  all 
such  as  did  not  adhere  to  the  Judaism  of  the  codes  must  be 
read  out  of  the  faith;  it  was  a  dignified  assertion  of  the 
right  to  residence  within  the  household  of  Judaism  on  the 
part  of  such  as  re-interpreted  the  truths  of  the  faith  in  the 
light  of  the  new  life  which  had  superseded  mediaeval  dark- 
ness and  ghetto  conditions.  It  were  a  mistake,  however,  as 
was  done  by  enthusiastic  admirers  at  the  time,  to  claim  for 
Stern  the  credit  of  having  been  the  creator  through  these 
addresses  of  the  Berlin  reform  movement.  It  was  not  as 
though  reform  in  Judaism  had  been  unknown  and  un- 
thought  of  before  these  addresses  were  delivered.  The 
same  conditions  prevailed  in  Berlin  as  in  Hamburg,  Frank- 
fort, Breslau  and  other  cities.  The  new  spirit  which  had 
come  upon  Israel  had  made  itself  felt  in  Berlin  long  be- 
fore, but  it  was  suppressed  owing  to  untoward  circum- 
stances. Now,  again,  it  was  coming  to  the  fore,  and  Stern 

1Die  Aufgabe  des  Judenthums  und  des  Juden  in  der  Gegenwart, 
second  edition,  Berlin,  1853,  p.  341-3. 


326  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

was  the  spokesman  whose  words  reflected  the  thoughts  of 
hundreds  in  the  community.  He  himself  discountenanced 
all  claim  to  being  looked  upon  as  the  creator  of  the  move- 
ment. *  He  was  but  one  of  a  number  of  men  of  similar 
thoughts,  strivings  and  tendencies.  He  had  the  courage  to 
give  voice  publicly  to  these  thoughts  and  tendencies,  and 
his  addresses  thus  furnished  the  impulse  that  brought  the 
men  of  knowledge,  thought,  and  activity  together  and  sup- 
plied the  guaranty  to  each  one  that  there  would  be  no  lack 
of  sympathizers  were  they  to  take  active  steps  toward  realiz- 
ing their  ideas. 2  And  the  first  active  step  followed  close- 
ly. On  March  7,  1845,  Ludwig  Lesser  invited  a  number 
of  men  to  confer  together  concerning  important  affairs  in 
Judaism  at  a  meeting  to  be  held  on  March  10th  in  the 
rooms  of  the  '  *  Culture  Society. ' ' 

The  outcome  of  this  first  meeting  was  the  adoption  of  a 
resolution  to  the  following  effect :  ' '  We  declare  that  rabbin- 
ical Judaism  as  a  whole  and  in  its  separate  commands  is  not 
in  harmony  with  our  scientific  conviction  and  the  demands 
of  life.  Resolved,  therefore,  that  we  elect  a  committee  to 
make  propositions  to  us  whether  and  how  progress  in  this 
respect  is  possible. ' ' 3 

The  results  of  the  numerous  deliberations  of  the  com- 
mittee of  eight  appointed  in  accordance  with  this  resolution 
were  embodied  in  the  famous  "Appeal  to  our  German  Co- 
religionists" (Aufruf  an  unsere  deutsche  Glaubensbruder), 
which  appeared  in  the  various  newspapers  of  Berlin  in  the 
beginning  of  April,  1845.  This  document  was  as  follows : 
"From  the  time  that  we  ceased  to  suffer  from  political 
oppression  in  our  German  fatherland  and  the  soaring  spirit 
cast  off  its  fetters ;  from  the  time  that  we  became  identified 
with  our  surroundings  in  culture  and  custom,  our  religion 
failed  gradually  to  give  us  that  satisfaction  which  was  the 

1Die  gegenwdrtige  Bewegung  im  Judenthume,  11. 

2  Ibid.,  10. 

8  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  28. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  327 

comfort  and  the  happiness  of  our  ancestors.  Our  religion 
clung  to  the  forms  and  prescriptions  that  had  been  handed 
down  for  centuries,  but  our  convictions  and  our  sentiments, 
our  inner  religion,  is  no  longer  in  harmony  with  this  inter- 
pretation. Hence  we  are  in  a  state  of  conflict  with  our- 
selves, and  there  is  a  contradiction  between  our  inner  life 
and  faith  and  the  external  life,  the  given  law. 

"True,  our  savants  and  teachers  are  engaged  in  a  com- 
bat in  the  field  of  theology  for  and  against  a  reconciliation 
of  this  contradiction ;  but  how  long  has  this  been  the  case ! 
and  the  end  of  the  combat  is  not  in  sight.  In  the  mean- 
time, however,  life  has  superseded  science;  in  the  mean- 
time the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  cultured  members 
of  our  community  has  renounced  the  greatest  portion  of  our 
religious  prescriptions,  and  even  those  which  they  still  keep 
are  observed  without  belief  and  without  enthusiasm.  The 
confusion  is  great.  Nowhere  union,  nowhere  a  support, 
nowhere  a  limit.  The  old  rabbinical  Judaism  with  its  firm 
basis  has  no  basis  any  longer  in  us.  In  vain  are  the  efforts 
of  those  who  aim  to  preserve  it  artificially.  The  petrified 
doctrine  and  our  life  are  divorced  forever.  The  doubt 
which  has  begun  to  negate  threatens  to  transgress  all  limits. 
It  begets  indifference  and  unbelief  and  delivers  us  over  to 
a  state  of  helplessness  in  which  we  are  compelled  to  witness 
with  pain  how,  together  with  the  antiquated  forms,  the 
eternal  holy  kernel  of  true  Judaism  threatens  to  be  lost  for 
our  descendants. 

' '  These  are  facts  which  speak  for  themselves,  which  only 
those  do  not  see  who  will  not  see— facts  which  fill  our 
hearts  with  glowing  zeal,  which  call  forth  all  our  energy 
and  embolden  us  to  issue  the  call  to  you,  our  German  co- 
religionists who  feel  as  do  we,  who  feel  that  it  is  incumbent 
on  us  not  to  view  idly  the  ruin  and  the  vain  artificial 
varnishing  of  the  breach  but  to  take  steps  together  after 
coming  to  a  mutual  understanding,  to  save  out  of  the  chaos 
what  can  continue  to  exist  in  our  spiritual  development  and 


328  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

in  our  German  life,  and  to  repudiate  openly  what  has  died 
in  us. 

1 '  With  this  sentiment  we  have  come  together,  feeling  our 
justification  to  declare  openly  and  decidedly  the  necessity 
of  a  change,  a  justification  which  we  assume  and  may  as- 
sume because  our  holiest  interests  are  threatened  with  im- 
mediate danger,  although  we  are  conscious  at  the  same 
time  that  we  are  not  the  elect  who  are  to  carry  out  this 
change.  Therefore  we  wish  to  assure  ourselves  of  the 
sympathy  and  agreement  of  our  German  co-religionists 
and  in  conjunction  with  them  convene  a  synod  in  order  to 
fix  that  aspect  of  Judaism  which  corresponds  with  our  age 
and  the  sentiments  of  our  heart. 

"We  desire:  Faith;  we  desire:  Positive  Religion;  we 
desire:  Judaism.  We  hold  fast  to  the  spirit  of  Sacred 
Scripture,  which  we  recognize  as  a  testimony  of  divine 
revelation  by  which  the  spirit  of  our  fathers  was  illumined. 
We  hold  fast  to  everything  which  is  necessary  for  the  true 
worship  of  God,  rooted  in  the  spirit  of  our  religion.  We 
hold  fast  to  the  conviction  that  Judaism's  doctrine  of  God 
is  eternally  true  and  to  the  prediction  that  the  knowledge 
of  God  as  proclaimed  by  Judaism  will  at  some  time  become 
the  possession  of  all  mankind.  But  we  desire  to  interpret 
Holy  Writ  according  to  its  divine  spirit;  we  cannot  sacri- 
fice our  divine  freedom  to  the  tyranny  of  the  dead  letter. 
We  cannot  pray  sincerely  for  an  earthly  Messianic  domin- 
ion which  is  to  lead  us  to  the  home  of  our  ancestors  out  of 
the  fatherland  to  which  we  cling  with  all  the  bonds  of 
love  as  though  this  were  a  strange  land  to  us.  We  can  no 
longer  observe  commands  which  have  no  spiritual  hold  on 
us  and  can  no  longer  recognize  a  code  as  immutable  law- 
book  according  to  which  the  essence  and  the  mission  of 
Judaism  consist  in  blind  adherence  to  forms  and  prescrip- 
tions which  owe  their  origin  to  a  time  long  past  and  for- 
ever vanished. 

"Permeated  with  the  holy  content  of  our  religion  we 


THE  REFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  329 

cannot  preserve  it  in  the  bequeathed  form,  much  less  be- 
queath it  in  this  form  to  our  descendants  and  so,  placed 
between  the  graves  of  our  ancestors  and  the  cradles  of  our 
children,  the  cornet-call  of  the  age  thrills  us,  the  latest 
recipients  of  a  great  heritage  in  its  antiquated  form  to  be 
also  the  first  who,  with  undaunted  courage,  with  true  frat- 
ernization by  word  and  act,  lay  the  foundation  of  this 
new  structure  for  ourselves  and  the  generations  which  come 
after  us. 

' '  However,  we  do  not  wish  to  dissociate  ourselves  by  this 
step  from  the  community  to  which  we  belong;  nay,  we  ex- 
tend the  hand  of  brotherhood  in  love  and  tolerance  to  all, 
also  to  those  of  our  co-religionists  who  differ  with  us.  We 
desire  no  schism.  But  upon  you,  who  sympathize  with  us, 
we  call  confidently  for  the  closest  union  that  shall  make  for 
truth  within,  indulgence  without,  endurance  in  the  fight 
with  others  and  faithfulness  towards  ourselves. 

"And  thus  our  appeal  goes  forth  to  you,  Germ'an  co- 
religionists, far  and  near, 

"That  you  associate  yourselves  with  us  by  name  and 
assure  us  by  word  and  act  of  your  support  and  aid  in  order 
that  we  in  great  number  can  convene  a  synod  which  shall 
renew  and  establish  Judaism  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
capable  and  worthy  of  continuing  as  a  living  force  for  us 
and  our  children. 1 

"Berlin,  April  2,  1845. " 

The  Berlin  reformers  had  taken  to  heart  the  lessons 
taught  by  the  experience  of  their  forerunners  in  Frank- 
fort and  avoided  the  mistakes  that  the  latter  had  made. 
In  comparing  this  appeal  with  the  program  of  the  Society 
of  the  Friends  of  Kef orm  of  Frankfort 2  one  cannot  but 
be  struck  at  once  by  the  warmer  religious  sentiment,  the 
more  positive  tone  and  the  more  intense  Jewishness  of  the 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  234-236,  I.  N.  J.,  VI,  129,  130.     Holdheim,  G.  J. 
B.  G.  B.,  49-52.     Levin,  Die  Reform  des  Judenthums,  34-39. 
2  Supra,  165,  Ritter,  Die  judische  Beformgemeinde  zu  Berlin,  54. 


330  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Berlin  document.  It  was  therefore  not  assailed  with  the 
violence  and  virulence  that  the  other  had  called  forth. 1 
As  at  Frankfort,  so  at  Berlin,  the  movement  for  reform 
had  emanated  from  the  people;  among  the  signers  to  the 
appeal  there  is  not  one  theologian  by  profession,  although 
one  of  the  number,  A.  Rebenstein,  possessed  theological 
knowledge  2  but  there  was  a  marked  difference  in  the  at- 
titude towards  the  rabbis ;  the  Frankfort  reformers  as- 
sumed an  attitude  of  opposition,  nay,  almost  of  contempt ; 3 
the  Berlin  reformers  acknowledged  that  the  theoretical 

1  The  most  bitter  attack  upon  the  * l  Auf ruf ' '  and  the  Berlin  move- 
ment   was    made    by    David    Cassel    in    his    brochure,    ' '  Woher   und 
Wohin?"  Berlin,  1845.     Other  anti-reform  publications  called  forth 
by  this  appeal  and  the  subsequent  formation  of  the  Berlin  Reform 
Congregation  were  M.  Kalisch,  Berlin's  judische  Reformation  nach 
der  Thronbesteigung  Friedrich  Wilhelm  III  und  IV,  Berlin,  1846; 
Selig  (later  Paulus)   Cassel,  Ansprache  an  die  Gemeinde  in  Glogau 
in  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  No.  26;  S.  Kriiger,  Beden~ken  gegen  die  neusten 
Reform  Bestrebungen  im  Judenthum;  J.  Misses,  Beitrag  zur  Wur- 
digung  der  Wirren  im  Judenthum.     Leipzig,  1845.     Favorable  to  the 
reform  movement  were  S.  Stern,  "Die  Aufgabe  des  Judenthums  und 
des  Juden  in  der  Gegenwart."     Berlin,  1845,  which  is  really  a  com- 
mentary on  the  appeal  by  one  of  its  chief  framers.     Ibid.,  Die  Re- 
ligion des  Judenthums.     Berlin,  1846.     Ibid.,  Was  ist  geschehen  und 
was  ist  zu  thun?     Berlin,   1847.     Noch  ein  Wort  zur  israelitischen 
Reformfrage — Eine    Stimme    aus    dem    Volke    melleicht    auch    eine 
Stimme  in  der  Wuste.     Hamburg,  1845  (published  anonymously,  but 
its  author  was  most  likely  E.  Kley).     J.  L.  Schwarz,  Was  ist  judische 
Religion?    Ein  Leitfaden  fur  das  Kilnftige  Glaubens-belcenntniss  der 
judischen    Reformgemeinschaft.     Berlin,    1845.     Cf.    also    Die    Ver- 
hdltnisse    der   israelitischen    Gemeinde   zu   Berlin,   A.    Z.    d.   J.,   IX 
(1845),    nos.    42,    43,    44.     See    also    Zur    neuesten    Geschichte    der 
judischen  Gemeinde  in  Berlin  in  Literaturblatt  des  Orient,  1845,  161, 
180-194,  214,  236.     Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  VI,  165, 
173,  180,  197,  204,  230,  288,  317,  325,  341,  349,  355,  367,  383,  399. 

2  See  the  article  Unsere  Gegenwart  already  referred  to  frequently ; 
also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  375;  and  articles  in  the  short-lived  periodical, 
Reform  Zeitung,  Organ  fur  den  Fortschrift  im  Judenthume."     Ber- 
lin, 1847. 

8  Supra,  161. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  331 

guidance  of  the  movement  must  be  in  the  hands  of  trained 
theologians;  therefore,  they  sought  to  enter  into  friendly 
relations  with  the  rabbinical  Conference1  and  asked  the 
advice  of  members  of  the  Conference  2  who  stopped  at  Ber- 
lin on  their  way  home  from  the  gathering  at  Frankfort. 
The  Frankfort  reformers  had  set  up  a  creed— though  a 
creed  of  negations— while  the  signers  to  the  Berlin  appeal 
were  careful  not  to  close  their  document  with  a  declaration 
of  principles.  Most  of  the  signers  in  truth  were  opposed 
to  a  creed.  One  dogmatic  point  only  was  touched,  viz.,  the 
Messianic  belief.  The  reason  for  this  grows  apparent  when 
we  remember  that  the  time  when  the  appeal  appeared  was 
also  the  time  when  the  Jews  were  still  struggling  for  full 
civil  and  political  emancipation.  Every  opportunity  there- 
fore was  seized  to  testify  to  their  love  for  the  fatherland. 3 
Had  it  not  been  for  this  accident  of  the  time,  not  even 
this  special  point  of  Messianic  interpretation  would  have 
been  mentioned  for  it  was  the  sense  of  the  preparers  of  the 

1  Supra,  264.  2  Infra,  346. 

3  One  of  the  frequent  charges  advanced  against  reform  was  that 
it  was  a  purely  opportunist  movement  and  that  its  object  was  to 
carry  favor  with  the  government  by  repudiating  the  traditional  doc- 
trines of  the  coming  of  the  political  leader  (Messiah),  the  national 
restoration  and  the  return  to  Palestine  and  thus  gain  civil  emancipa- 
tion. Even  Gabriel  Riesser  entertained  this  suspicion  in  reference  to 
some  of  the  reformers  of  the  day;  see  David  Honigmann's  Aufzeich- 
nungen  aus  seinen  Studienjahren  (1841-5)  in  Jahrbuch  fur  jiidische 
Geschichte  und  Literatur,  VII,  141.  Berlin,  1904.  This  charge  was 
unwarranted;  certainly  no  one  will  deny  now  that  Holdheim,  Geiger, 
Einhorn,  and  the  other  leaders  were  sincere  in  their  separation  of  the 
political  and  the  religious  elements  in  Judaism.  For  them  the  polit- 
ical phase  had  passed  with  the  loss  of  national  independence;  for 
them,  too,  Judaism's  Messianic  mission  was  universal.  This  was  the 
parting  of  the  ways  of  the  traditionalists  and  the  reformers.  It 
is  more  than  likely  that  had  civil  emancipation  not  come,  the  reform 
movement  would  not  have  arisen;  but  in  the  spirit  of  freedom  that 
had  come  into  the  world,  the  reformers  recognized  the  working  of 
God's  providence,  and  in  a  line  with  the  demand  of  that  spirit  re- 
interpreted Jewish  doctrine,  notably  in  regard  to  the  significance  of 
the  political  status  of  the  Messianic  question. 


332  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

appeal  that  this  should  be  a  glowing  call  couched  in  general 
terms,  picturing  the  religious  conditions  among  the  Jews 
and  making  clear  what  they  desired,  viz.,  faith,  positive 
religion,  Judaism,  while  the  determination,  interpretation, 
and  definition  of  all  special  points  should  be  left  to  the 
synod  provided  for  in  the  concluding  paragraph. 

This  suggestion  to  call  a  synod  to  be  composed  of  repre- 
sentative delegates  from  the  various  reform  societies  was 
a  new  idea  injected  by  the  founders  of  the  Berlin  Reform 
Society  into  the  religious  thought  of  the  time.  This  synod 
was  to  take  into  consideration  the  changes  which  had  come 
upon  Jewish  life  and  thought  in  the  new  environment  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  reinterpret  the  truths  of  Judaism 
in  the  light  of  these  changes  and  give  authoritative  expres- 
sion to  what  constituted  the  fundamentals  of  Jewish  thought 
and  practice,  this  expression  to  be  the  rule  of  guidance  for 
congregations  and  individuals  and  to  form  the  point  of 
union  for  the  different  forces  that  were  pulling  this  way 
and  that  among  the  Jews  who  had  renounced  in  practice 
the  authority  of  the  rabbinical  code.  In  time  past  this 
code  had  been  the  authoritative  voice;  the  Jew  who  was 
lax  in  his  observance  of  its  prescriptions  was  considered  a 
renegade.  True,  there  was  always  freedom  of  thought  in 
Jewry,  but  not  freedom  of  practice;  heresy  trials  for 
repudiation  of  belief  in  an  authoritative  creed  were  foreign 
to  the  Judaism  of  rabbinical  times,  because  Judaism  was 
primarily  a  system  of  ceremonial  observance;  departures 
from  this  latter,  however,  were  as  severely  frowned  upon  as 
was  laxity  of  belief  in  the  orthodox  creed  in  Christianity ; 
the  code  which  prescribed  the  requirements  of  ceremonial 
observance  was  as  binding  upon  the  Jew  as  was  the 
apostolic  creed  upon  the  Christian.  As  long  as  free 
thought  did  not  result  in  neglect  of  performance  of  the 
prescribed  observances  and  ceremonies,  there  was  the  wi- 
dest lattitude  of  thought  permitted.  We  must  be  clear  upon 
this  point  for  much  confusion  exists  here.  The  much- 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  333 

discussed  declaration  of  Mendelssohn  that  Judaism  is  not  a 
doctrinal  system  (Glaubenslehre),  but  legislation  (Gesetz- 
gebung)  is  not  far  from  the  mark  from  the  point  of  view 
of  rabbinical  tradition;  and  the  great  advance  of  the  re- 
form position  beyond  this  standpoint  of  rabbinism  ex- 
pressed by  Mendelssohn  in  his  famous  dictum  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it  has  repudiated  the  ceremonial  law  as  the  prac- 
tical confession  of  Judaism  because  the  bond  between  this 
ceremonial  law  and  the  belief  which  it  was  supposed  to  ex- 
press had  been  broken,  and  Judaism  had  become  slavish 
practice  without  conviction;  for  it  the  reform  movement 
had  substituted  the  moral  law  as  fundamental,  making 
truth  synonymous  with  individual  holiness,  and  thus  as- 
suring the  real  freedom  to  the  individual,  for  in  the  realm 
of  Judaism 's  moral  law  freedom  reigns. 1 

However  the  individualism  which  followed  in  the  train 
of  breaking  loose  from  the  fetters  of  code  observance 
threatened  disaster  in  the  view  of  many.  In  the  place  of 
the  fixed  anchor— the  ceremonial  law— to  which  Jews  had 
clung  aforetime,  there  was  now  no  support;  reform  went 

1  On  this  point  of  the  attitude  of  reform  towards  the  ceremonial 
legislation,  see  Geiger,  W.  Z.  J.  T.,  IV,  10.  Nachgelassene  Schriften, 
I,  15;  Holdheim,  Das  Ceremonialgesetz  im  Gottesreich,  Schwerin, 
1845;  Ueber  die  das  talmudfeche  Judenthum  durchdringende  Ansicht 
von  der  absoluten  Ewiglceit  des  Ceremonialgesetzes,  die  Jidhere  An- 
schauung  der  Propheten  und  das  Beformprincip  der  positiven  Jiis- 
torischen  Fortbildung,  I.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  361-74,  368-74,  377-382, 
401,  406.  Holdheim 's  argument  may  be  briefly  stated  thus:  The 
validity  of  the  ceremonial  law  existed  in  Israel  only  so  long  as  the 
belief  existed  among  the  people  that  this  ceremonial  legislation  was 
essential;  when  this  belief  ceased,  the  ceremonial  legislation  lost  its 
validity;  belief,  then,  is  the  chief  thing,  ceremonial  secondary.  See 
further  Frankfurter,  Israelitische  Annalen,  II  (1840),  371;  Ein- 
horn,  Ausgeicahlte  Predigten  und  Beden,  herausgegeben  von  Dr.  K. 
Kohler,  111.  New  York,  1881;  Chorin,  Babbinische  Gutachten  uber 
die  VertrdglicJikeit  der  freien  Forschung  mit  dem  Babbineramte,  I, 
18,  Breslau,  1842;  Abraham  Kohn,  ibid.,  104;  Herxheimer,  ibid.,  123; 
Samuel  Hirsch  in  Babbinische  Gutachten  uber  die  BescJineidung,  53. 
Frankfurt  a.  M.,  1844. 


334      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

to  greater  or  less  lengths  according  to  individual  caprice. 
Little  wonder,  then,  that  the  idea  arose  to  convene  a  synod 
to  deliberate  upon  present  conditions  and  to  furnish,  if  not 
a  body  of  authority,  at  least  a  representative  organization 
to  which  there  could  be  referred  for  deliberation,  discussion 
and  decision  the  many  problems  that  were  troubling  earnest 
Jewish  spirits.  True,  synods  were  not  unknown  among  the 
Jews  since  their  dispersion  among  the  nations;  such  had 
been  convened  at  crises  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  ;*  but  these 
synods,  e.  g.,  Usha,  in  138,  the  synods  of  Shum  (Speyer, 
Worms,  and  Mayence)  in  the  thirteenth  century;  the 
synods  of  Erfurt  and  Nuremberg  in  the  fifteenth,  of  Frank- 
fort in  the  seventeenth  century,  etc.,  etc.,  had  been  con- 
cerned not  with  determining  points  of  belief,  but  of  prac- 
tice, or  of  meeting  critical  situations  in  the  external  for- 
tunes of  the  Jewish  people ;  the  French  synod  or  synhedrin 
of  1807  was  different  from  all  the  others,  inasmuch  as  it 
was  called  by  the  secular  power  and  not  convened  by  the 
Jews  themselves.  The  synod,  however,  which  was  agitated 
for  by  the  Berlin  reformers  was  intended  to  be  different 
from  all  these ;  it  was  to  concern  itself  with  determining 
the  significance  and  the  essence  of  Jewish  belief  and  prac- 
tice, to  pronounce  upon  the  relation  of  modern  reform 
Judaism  to  the  traditions,  to  interpret  the  present  attitude 
upon  all  vital  points,  as  the  liturgy,  marriage  and  divorce, 
the  ceremonies,  the  position  of  woman,  the  dietary  laws  and 
the  Sabbath ;  it  was  to  be  different  from  the  rabbinical  con- 
ferences, inasmuch  as  the  discussions  in  these  latter  were 
purely  academic,  while  the  declarations  of  the  synod  com- 
posed of  accredited  delegates  from  the  congregations  were 
to  be  binding  upon  these. 

Simion  who  was  its  strongest  advocate  pleaded  for  it  as 
the  corrective  of  the  evils  of  congregational  autonomy.  It 

1  H.  G.  Enelow,  ' '  The  Synod  in  the  Past  and  its  Feasibility  in  the 
Present/*  Tear  Boole  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  Vol.  X 
(1900),  104-132. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  335 

was  to  be  the  centre  of  the  circle  of  Judaism  and  the  con- 
gregations, the  radia  drawing  their  life  from  this  center. 1 
Stern  advocated  the  synod  as  the  cap-stone  of  the  reform 
movement.  He  set  forth  the  plan  of  its  organization  and 
its  method  so  clearly  that  his  words  may  be  reproduced: 
"The  synod  will  consist  of  representatives  elected  by  the 
congregations;  its  chief  duty  will  be  to  realize  in  its  reso- 
lutions the  conviction  of  the  community  and  to  furnish 
means  for  its  adequate  expression.  It  shall  not  regard  it- 
self as  an  authority  which  has  the  right  to  pass  laws  that 
are  binding  upon  the  community  because  it  has  passed 
them,  but  the  synod  will  consider  itself  the  only  and  high- 
est organ  in  which  the  conviction  and  the  will  of  this  many- 
membered  community  find  expression.  For  the  new  form 
of  our  religion  is  not  to  be  inspired  from  without,  but  is  to 
spring  from  the  real  and  well-understood  need  of  the 
present ;  for  only  thus  will  it  satisfy  this  need  fully  and 
properly.  The  synod  then  will  be  composed  of  true  repre- 
sentatives of  the  congregations,  i.  e.,  of  men,  who  not  only 
know  the  conviction  of  the  congregation,  but  have  imbibed 
it  in  the  deepest  and  purest  sense.  The  synod  is  not  a  rab- 
binical Conference;  still,  an  essential  feature  of  its  work 
will  be  that  the  learned  and  theological  element  will  have 
strong  representation  in  it;  on  the  other  hand,  the  prac- 
tical element  is  to  be  represented  by  men  who  have  under- 
stood thoroughly  the  soul  of  the  people.  The  resolutions 
of  the  synod  must  be  decisive  and  binding  for  the  congre- 
gations which  have  joined  the  religious  union.  I  say,  bind- 
ing but  not  eternal,  binding  for  the  present  but  not  for  all 
time.  The  essential  feature  of  the  present  movement  is 
the  deliverance  from  the  stability  of  the  traditional  relig- 
ious forms  of  Judaism,  and  we  cannot  call  forth  new  crea- 
tions which  presume  upon  a  like  eternal  authority.  There- 
fore the  resolutions  of  this  synod  must  not  be  looked  upon 
as  authentic  interpretations  of  the  divine  Will,  but  as  the 
1  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  162. 


336  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

most  complete  expression  of  the  present  religious  conscious- 
ness and  as  the  realization  of  the  religious  need  evidenced 
in  modern  Judaism.  Therefore,  also,  provision  must  be 
made  for  periodical  meetings  of  the  synod,  not  at  too  close 
intervals,  as  a  matter  of  course,  in  order  that  the  element 
of  uninterrupted  development  in  the  life  of  Judaism  do 
not  perish. ' ' 1 

Regarded  from  this  point  of  view,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand the  opposition  of  even  the  most  pronounced  advo- 
cates of  individual  religious  freedom.  The  synod  as  thus 
conceived  arrogates  to  itself  no  hierarchical  authority;  it 
would  not  hamper  individual  freedom  of  opinion ;  it  would 
be  simply  a  central  religious  organization  of  a  character 
so  representative  that  its  pronouncements  and  decisions 
would  carry  weight  from  this  fact  alone.  It  is  not  to  be 
believed  that  any  of  the  advocates  of  the  synod  among  the 
Berlin  reformers  would  have  countenanced  for  a  moment 
the  formation  of  such  an  organization  to  be  an  ecclesiastical 
court  with  the  power  to  try  for  heresy  and  to  pronounce 
the  individual  guilty  or  not  guilty  on  the  score  of  religious 
belief.  This  was  the  bogey  that  the  opponents  of  the  synod 
conjured  up,  notably  Holdheim;  he  and  his  sympathizers 
constantly  discountenanced  the  calling  of  a  synod  on  the 
score  of  individual  freedom  or  because  it  was  not  practical 
in  Judaism. 2  However,  even  Holdheim  was  impressed 
with  the  need  of  a  central  organization  or  Religionsbelwrde, 
as  he  calls  it ;  the  lack  of  such  an  organization  in  Judaism 
now  should  not  lead  us  to  justify  our  course  in  the  name  of 

1  Die  gegenwartige  Bewegung  im  Judenthum;   ihre  Berechtigung 
und  Bedentung,  44-5.     See  also  Eebenstein's  clear  statement:  "The 
synod  shall  restore  Judaism  to  us  in  a  form  in  which  its  eternal  con- 
tent is  capable  of  living  on  in  us.     We  wish  to  enter  into  relation 
with  Judaism  once  again  through  living  men,  through  a  living  institu- 
tion, and  be  no  longer  fettered  to  dead  letters  and  their  equally  dead, 
closed  interpretation."     A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  375. 

2  Geschichte  .  .  .  der  jiidischen  Reformgemeinde  in  Berlin,  40,  43, 
117,  124,  131,  153,  161  ff.;  especially  119,  121. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGBEGATION  OF  BERLIN     337 

unbridled  individual  license,  he  writes;  but  we  should  be 
guided  by  the  spirit  of  true  freedom  which  penetrates  into 
the  historicity  of  Judaism  in  order  to  discover  those  funda- 
mentals which  a  constituted  religious  authoritative  body, 
were  it  in  existence,  would  have  to  determine  upon  for  the 
ordering,  forming  and  developing  of  Judaism  according  to 
its  present  needs ;  only  in  this  sense  are  we  justified  in  con- 
sidering ourselves  as  taking  the  place  of  such  a  body.  He 
predicts  that  a  Religionsbeliorde  of  this  kind,  understanding 
the  needs  of  the  present,  will  be  formed ;  it  will  not  stand  in 
the  way  of  free  religious  development  but  rather  further 
it.  Only  when  the  Talmud,  the  letter,  took  the  place  of  the 
living  authoritative  body,  did  development  cease  in  Juda- 
ism. "Unless  my  reading  of  the  future  deceives  me,  such 
a  living  religious  authoritative  organization  will  be  formed. 
The  historical  spirit  of  Judaism  sways  and  rules  in  spite 
of  all  chaotic  confusions,  and  this  will  not  fail  to  create  its 
organ. ' ' x  This  was,  after  all,  what  the  advocates  of  a 
synod  desired ;  and  at  bottom,  then,  Holdheim  agreed  with 
them,  although  he  expressed  himself  so  frequently  against 
the  conventional  idea  of  the  synod,  in  fear  possibly  that  its 
formation  might  result  in  an  organization  similar  to  the 
synod  in  the  Christian  churches.  Such  an  eventuality  was 
impossible,  however,  for  two  reasons :  first,  it  is  against  the 
spirit  of  Judaism,  which,  except  in  the  rarest  instances, 
when  it  was  affected  by  Christian  surroundings  and  ex- 
ample, as  in  the  Uriel  Acosta  and  Spinoza  cases,  never  insti- 
tuted heresy  trials  and  excommunicated  the  holders  of  un- 
orthodox opinions;  and  secondly,  because  this  is  contrary 
to  the  trend  of  thought  in  the  modern  world.  These  two 
great  forces,  viz.,  tradition  and  environment,  minimize  to 
the  last  degree  the  danger  that  any  religious  organization 
in  Jewry  would  interfere  with  individual  freedom  of 
opinion. 2 

1  Gescliiclite  .  .  .  der  judischen  Eeformgemeinde  in  Berlin,  220, 
note  3. 

"Even  the  radical  of  radicals  among  the  rabbis  of  that  day,  M. 
22 


338      THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  appeal  struck  a  popular  chord.  It  called  forth 
responses  from  Jews  in  a  number  of  communities  outside  of 
Berlin,  such  as  Kulm, *  Frankfort, 2  Elbing,  Lissa,  Mann- 
heim. 3  Hundreds  in  the  city  of  Berlin  declared  them- 
selves in  sympathy  with  the  thoughts  and  aspirations  there- 
in expressed.  4 

The  meeting  for  the  organization  of  the  society  was 
called  for  May  8th,  four  weeks  after  the  publication  of  the 
address.  By  this  time  two  hundred  and  forty-eight  Jews 
of  Berlin  and  sixty-nine  without  the  city  had  declared 
their  desire  to  join  with  the  framers  of  the  address  in  the 
movement  they  had  set  afoot.  The  Appeal  formed  the 
constitutional  basis  of  the  society  which  was  formally 
organized  at  this  meeting  under  the  name  "  Association  for 
Reform  in  Judaism"  (Genossenschaft  fur  Reform  in 
Judenthume).  The  meeting  was  attended  by  from  four  to 
five  hundred  people,  and  was  presided  over  by  Carl  Hey- 
mann,  one  of  the  signers  of  the  Appeal.  In  calling  the 
meeting  to  order  the  presiding  officer  set  forth  the  purpose 
of  the  gathering :  "We  do  not  wish  to  tear  down  and  under- 
mine, but  to  preserve  and  perpetuate,  the  glorious,  noble 
foundations  of  our  religion.  We  desire  to  free  it  from  the 
moldy  and  weatherworn  walls  which  surround  it,  in  order 
that  the  bright  light  of  God  may  shine  upon  it  and  the  sun 
of  heaven  warm  the  inhabitants  within,  as  formerly  in  the 
days  of  our  fathers. ' ' 5  Fifteen  trustees  were  elected  who 
Hess,  endorsed  the  synod  idea  in  a  leading  article,  "Die  neuesten 
Eef ormbewegungen, ' '  I.  N.  J.,  VI  (1845),  163;  his  words  are  "eine 
aus  dem  Volke  hervorgehende  und  seine  intelligensten  und  gesin- 
nungsedelsten  Glieder  zahlende  Versammlung,  eine  Synode  ist  am 
ersten  geeignet,  bei  dem  Werk  der  Eeform  so  wohl  alien  Gemein- 
same  festzustellen  als  die  individuelle  Glaubensfreiheit  zu  wahren." 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  281.  2Ibid.,  297.  'Ibid.,  372. 

4  On  the  other  hand,  the  address  aroused  the  ire  of  the  anti-re- 
formers; thus  the  editor  of  the  French  newspaper,  L'Univers  Israelit, 
spoke  of  it  as  "a  Jewish  New  Testament  signed  by   28  would-be 
evangelists. ' ' 

5  Holdheim,    Geschichte    der    Entstehung    und    Entwickelung    der 
judischen  Beformgemeinde  in  Berlin,  107. 


THE  KEFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEKLIN     339 

were  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  association.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  meeting  did  not  organize  itself  into  a  con- 
gregation, but  a  society;  all  those  who  enrolled  themselves 
as  members  of  the  society  were  as  a  matter  of  course  mem- 
bers of  the  main  Berlin  congregation,  even  though  they 
were  out  of  sympathy  with  the  principle  and  practice  of 
the  congregation.  It  is  unlikely  that  even  any  one  of  the 
original  movers  in  this  new  departure  had  any  thought  at 
this  time  of  organizing  a  distinct  congregation.  In  truth, 
such  a  congregation  could  have  no  standing  in  law;  the 
government  recognized  only  the  one  central  Jewish  body; 
the  organization  of  the  society  was  for  the  purpose  of 
crystallizing  the  opinions  of  that  great  number  of  Jews 
throughout  Germany  who  felt  the  inadequacy  of  the  in- 
herited traditions  to  satisfy  their  religious  needs  and  long- 
ings. This  Berlin  society  was  to  be  but  one  of  many  simi- 
lar organizations  throughout  Germany,  all  of  which  were  to 
send  delegates  to  the  synod,  which  was  to  determine  the 
status  of  the  new  movement.  The  Berlin  society  intended 
merely  to  give  the  impulse;  its  founders  were  sincere  in 
their  purpose  of  making  this  a  general  and  not  a  local  move- 
ment. However,  many  months,  perhaps  years,  would 
elapse  before  the  preliminaries  for  the  convening  of  a  synod 
could  be  perfected,  viz.,  the  formation  of  reform  societies 
everywhere,  the  election  of  delegates  and  the  like.  Hence, 
at  the  very  first  meeting  of  the  trustees  the  question  was 
earnestly  debated  whether  they  should  take  immediate 
steps  towards  instituting  a  service  to  satisfy  the  local  need 
or  wait  with  this  until  after  the  convening  of  the  synod. 
The  signers  of  the  Appeal,  a  number  of  whom  were  among 
the  trustees,  viz.,  Stern,  Rebenstein,  Simion,  Lesser  and 
Heymann,  naturally  advocated  the  latter  course,  for  the 
Appeal  which  they  looked  upon  as  the  constitution  of  their 
organization,  had  culminated  in  the  recommendation  that 
like-thinking  Jews  should  assemble  to  consult  together  be- 
fore any  definite  practical  steps  were  taken,  and  that  there* 


340  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

fore  they  were  not  justified  in  doing  anything  single- 
handed.  On  the  other  hand,  others,  notably  Dr.  Bressler, 
contended  that  heed  must  be.  given  to  local  requirements. 
Here  were  hundreds  who  were  alienated  from  the  syna- 
gogue because  they  had  lost  all  sympathy  with  the  rabbinical 
interpretation  of  Judaism,  and  who  could  be  weaned  back 
if  prompt  measures  would  be  taken  for  the  institution  of  a 
service  at  which  prayers  and  sermon  should  be  expressive 
of  the  thoughts  and  aspirations  of  the  new  time  wherein 
they  were  living.  After  a  number  of  spirited  meetings, 
it  was  resolved  finally  to  take  steps  to  meet  the  present 
need  for  a  suitable  service  with  the  understanding,  how- 
ever, that  this  was  to  be  only  provisional  until  the  meeting 
of  the  synod, *  and  that  if  the  synod  should  declare  against 
any  portion  of  this  service,  they  would  bow  to  its  superior 
wisdom  and  authority.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Hold- 
heim  is  correct  in  his  contention  that  the  advocates  of  the 
synod  practically  surrendered  their  whole  case  when  they 
assented  to  this  proposition,  although  Stern  and  his  con- 

1  The  idea  of  holding  a  synod  was  not  realized  at  this  time.  In 
January,  1846,  the  Berlin  Reform  Association  issued  a  second  appeal 
which  urged  strongly  the  convening  of  the  synod.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X, 
117.  I.  N.  J.,  VII,  219,  20.  A  meeting  of  deputies  to  make  prepara- 
tions for  the  calling  of  a  synod  took  place  in  Berlin,  April  14-16, 
1846.  This  meeting  was  a  dismal  failure,  only  six  delegates  besides 
those  from  the  Berlin  society  being  present.  A  second  gathering  of 
deputies  was  called  for  October,  1847,  but  this  proved  no  more  suc- 
cessful. A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  680.  When  the  plan  of  holding  the  fourth 
rabbinical  conference  at  Mannheim  in  1847  was  abandoned,  the  execu- 
tive committee  of  the  Conference  suggested  that  a  synod  be  convened 
instead  (A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  470)  ;  but  this  call,  too,  resulted  in  no 
action.  When  a  synod  was  convened  finally  in  1869  at  Leipzig,  and 
again  at  Augsburg  in  1871,  these  were  not  synods  for  the  especial 
discussion  and  determination  of  the  principles  and  institutions  of 
reform  Judaism,  as  the  Berlin  reformers  had  purposed,  but  for  the 
consideration  of  problems  of  all  sorts  affecting  Jewry,  although  the 
spirit  of  reform  permeated  the  gatherings,  as  is  apparent  from  the 
resolutions  adopted,  and  notably  from  the  remarkable  addresses  of 
the  president,  Prof.  M.  Lazarus;  see  Chapter  XI. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEELIN     341 

freres  justified  their  action  by  the  plea  that  the  conditions 
in  Berlin  were  such  as  to  make  the  holding  of  such  a  serv- 
ice a  matter  of  prime  importance  and  that,  being  only  pro- 
visional, it  could  not  interfere  with  the  supremacy  of  the 
synod  when  once  established.  At  any  rate,  the  point  once 
decided,  the  official  machinery  was  set  in  motion  to  hold  the 
first  service  on  the  great  holidays  in  the  fall  of  that  same 
year  1845. 

Shortly  after  the  organization  of  this  reform  associa- 
tion, the  second  rabbinical  conference  met  at  Frankfort. 
As  has  been  stated,  the  Berlin  movement  was  distinctly  a 
lay  movement;  the  rabbis  of  the  city  were  unreservedly 
antagonistic ;  Sachs, x  the  newcomer,  was  almost  as  bitterly 
opposed  to  the  forward  movement  in  Judaism  as  were  such 
pronounced  and  fanatic  advocates  of  the  old  order  as  Jacob 
Aaron  Ettlinger  of  Berlin,  Abraham  Salomon  Trier  of 
Frankfort,  or  Hirsch  Lehren  of  Amsterdam.  In  truth,  it 
was  because  of  the  policy  of  the  rabbis  of  Berlin  that  the 
laymen  were  compelled  to  take  the  initiative ;  in  the  opinion 
of  the  organizers  of  the  reform  society  the  significance  of 
the  movement  lay  in  the  fact  that  *  *  it  did  not  proceed  from 
the  rabbis  nor  yet  from  theologians,  but  from  the  people 
itself. ' ' 2  There  was  always  danger  at  this  time  of  a 
broadening  of  the  breach  between  rabbi  and  people.  In 
the  earlier  day  while  the  Jew  was  still  confined  in  the  geo- 
graphical and  intellectual  ghetto,  the  bond  between  rabbi 
and  people  was  perfect ;  but  when  thousands  of  the  people 
entered  into  the  life  of  the  world,  the  rabbis  continued 
along  the  old  traditional  lines.  The  result  was  that  these 

1 1.  N.  J.,  VI,  181.  Sachs  preached  so  bitter  a  sermon  against  the 
Beform  Society  that  fifty  members  of  the  congregation  stepped  into 
the  ranks  of  the  society.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX,  320.  He  permitted  his 
feelings  against  the  reform  movement  to  carry  him  away  to  such  an 
extent  that  he  refused  to  receive  several  rabbis  who  had  attended 
the  Frankfort  Conference  and  who  called  on  him  during  their  stay 
in  Berlin. 

2  Stern,  Die  gegenwdrtige  Bewegung  im  Judenthume,  28. 


342  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

advanced  spirits  came  to  consider  the  rabbis  as  identified 
with  an  outgrown  cause ;  when,  therefore,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Berlin  reformers,  the  need  for  some  religious  nutri- 
ment different  from  that  supplied  to  their  fathers  was  ex- 
perienced, they  turned  not  to  the  rabbis  of  the  community, 
for  these  were  out  of  all  sympathy  with  them.  But  yet  a 
religious  movement  without  any  affiliation  or  connection 
with  religious  leaders  was  felt  to  be  an  anomaly;  hence,  it 
was  determined  to  address  the  rabbinical  conference  and 
arrange  some  modus  Vivendi  whereby  the  reform  rabbis, 
through  their  official  organization,  and  the  "lay"  reform- 
ers, through  their  societies,  might  come  into  touch  with  one 
another  and  work  together.  This  was  to  be  accomplished 
through  the  synod.  A  deputation  of  the  society  appeared 
at  the  conference  and  presented  an  address  that  had  been 
prepared  very  carefully.  There  can  be  little  doubt  but 
that  the  primary  object  of  this  deputation  to  the  conference 
was  to  receive  from  the  conference  an  endorsement  of  the 
reform  society;  for  even  though  there  were  those  in  the 
society  who  felt  that  it  was  strong  enough  to  be  a  thorough- 
ly independent  movement,  yet  the  majority  desired  the  ap- 
proval of  an  authoritative  Jewish  body.  Although  the 
Conference  did  not  claim  to  be  such,  yet  was  it  the  nearest 
approach  thereto.  This  desire  was  apparent  from  the  clos- 
ing sentences  of  the  address  wherein  the  hope  was  ex- 
pressed that  the  Conference  would  give  some  expression 
to  its  official  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  reform  society 
had  been  called  into  being  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening 
and  preserving  Judaism,  not  of  undermining  it.  The 
answer  of  the  Conference  was  framed  very  diplomatically. 
The  reason  for  the  formation  of  the  society  was  recognized 
as  lying  in  the  desire  to  reconcile  life  with  Judaism ;  grati- 
fication was  expressed  that  the  conviction  of  the  need  of 
reform  in  Judaism  was  felt  by  the  people  as  well  as  by  the 
rabbis.  The  Conference  expressed  itself  as  willing  to 
work  hand  in  hand  with  the  reform  society  if  the  latter 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEELIN  343 

would  be  guided  by  the  principles  which  the  Conference 
considered  necessary  for  a  true  reform  in  Judaism.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  Conference  did  not  commit  itself. 
The  members  present  knew  full  well  that  it  was  such  men 
as  had  formed  the  Berlin  society  who  were  animated  by  the 
sentiment  that  the  salvation  to  be  wrought  by  reform  must 
emanate  from  the  people  and  not  from  the  rabbis.  These 
had  a  notion  that  theological  attainments  rather  hindered 
than  furthered  reform;  Stern,  for  example,  never  tired  of 
referring  slightingly  to  "threshed  theological  straw"  as 
incapable  of  furnishing  religious  nourishment  to  the  peo- 
ple :  this  must  be  drawn  from  the  perennial  stream  of  life. 
The  rabbis,  while  agreeing  that  the  demands  of  life,  were  a 
primary  factor  in  the  origin  of  reform,  yet  held  that  Juda- 
ism had  its  roots  in  the  soil  of  the  past  and  that  a  true  re- 
form was  not  possible  unless  fathered  by  theological  ex- 
perts acquainted  thoroughly  with  the  whole  development 
of  Judaism. x  It  was  only  men  like  Holdheim,  Geiger, 
Einhorn,  the  Adlers  and  Hirsch,  who,  combining  great 
learning  with  practical  acumen,  could  formulate  the  prin- 
ciples of  reform  Judaism;  others  not  theologically  trained 
might  and  did  recognize  the  need,  but  they  were  incapable 
of  more  than  a  superficial  statement. 2  The  rabbis  felt, 
and  rightfully  so,  that  they  could  not  endorse  the  Berlin 
society  unless  they  had  the  assurance  that  the  society  would 
be  guided  by  the  principles  laid  down  by  the  Conference. 
Still,  there  is  no  doubt  that  much  sympathy  with  the  Ber- 
lin experiment  was  felt  by  the  rabbis.  Philippson,  Salo- 
mon, Frankfurter,  Hirsch,  Hess  and  Holdheim  preached 
for  the  society  on  various  occasions  before  a  regular 
preacher  was  engaged:  Geiger  expressed  his  appreciation 

1  Holdheim,  G.  J.  B.  G.  B.,  40,  112. 

2  Stern 's  lectures  are  an  example  of  this ;  they  were  popular  to  the 
last  degree,  and  served  their  purpose  well,  of  arousing  his  hearers 
to  action;  but  they  fall  far  short  of  evincing  a  philosophical  grasp 
of  the  subject — ' '  The  Mission  of  Judaism. ' ' 


344  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  work  and  aim  of  the  society. 1  These  men  who  had 
the  cause  of  reform  thoroughly  at  heart  could  not  but  wel- 
come any  signs  among  the  people  of  intelligent  interest  in 
the  problems  that  were  troubling  them ;  but  they  could  not 
agree  that  any  but  the  religious  guides  should  lead.  The 
sentiment  which  animated  the  Berlin  reformers  was  vicious, 
viz.,  that  until  a  synod  should  be  formed  there  should  be 
these  two  parallel  forces  in  Judaism,  the  Conference  repre- 
senting the  rabbinate,  and  the  reform  society  representing 
the  laity.  This  separation  was  artificial ;  it  was  un-Jewish.2 
The  rabbi  is  no  priest  nor  the  rabbinate  a  hierarchy;  the 
rabbi  is  the  Jewish  scholar  and  theologian;  naturally  he 
should  lead  all  religious  movements  and  the  reform  society 
though  a  lay  movement  in  its  inception  should  have  ac- 
cepted the  guidance  of  religious  experts,  and  not  attempted 
to  prepare  a  ritual  without  their  aid,  as  it  did.  There  was 
a  certain  presumption  in  this,  and  an  apparent  impatient 
disregard  of  the  right  of  the  rabbi  to  the  first  place  in  the 
meeting  of  the  difficulties  of  the  religious  situation.  There 
would  have  been  excuse  for  this  had  there  been  no  rabbis 
favorable  to  religious  reform,  and  the  laity  been  compelled 
for  this  reason  to  take  the  whole  matter  in  hand ;  but  there 
were  so  many  men  of  supreme  ability  among  the  reform 
rabbis  that  their  co-operation  could  have  been  readily  se- 
cured for  the  preparation  of  the  ritual  and  the  institution 
of  the  service.  A  striking  feature  was  that  these  "lay" 
leaders  were  constantly  insisting  that  Judaism  knew  no  dis- 
tinction between  rabbis  and  layman,  and  yet  they  were 
doing  their  utmost  to  accentuate  this  distinction.  The 
differences  were  to  be  merged  in  the  synod,  where  the  rab- 
binical and  laical  streams  were  to  coalesce.  It  is  noticeable 

1  A.  Z.   d.  J.,  X,  235;   although  twenty  years  later   he  wrote   un- 
favorably of  "das  sektenartige  Streben  in  das  diese  Gemeinde  von 
ihrem  ersten  Auftreten  sich  verhartete,"  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  Ill,  217. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  /.,  X,  No.  29;  Frankel,  Zeitschrift   fur  die  Eeligiosen 
Interessen    des   Judenthums,    I,    95;    Graetz,   Monatsschrift    fur    die 
Geschichte  und  WissenscJiaft  des  Judenthums,  1869,  172. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEELIN     345 

that  the  Conference  expressed  no  opinion  on  the  synod, 
with  the  recommendation  of  which  the  address  of  the  Ber- 
lin society  closed,  further  than  to  say  that  they  would  fol- 
low with  interest  the  steps  that  would  be  taken  towards  the 
convening  of  the  synod.  Further,  the  Conference  treated 
the  address  of  the  Berlin  society  in  the  same  manner  as  it 
did  the  many  other  addresses  that  were  sent  from  various 
places.  The  rabbis  did  not  for  one  moment  consider  the 
advisability  of  entering  into  a  special  covenant  with  the 
Berlin  Association  or  of  giving  its  deputies  representation 
on  the  floor.  They  were  treated  with  no  greater  distinction 
than  any  of  the  other  visitors.  Theirs  it  was  ' '  to  learn  and 
not  to  teach ;  to  receive,  not  to  impart. "  It  is  very  doubt- 
ful whether  this  reception  quite  pleased  the  delegation, 
composed  of  Stern,  Rebenstein  and  Simion,  who,  owing  to 
their  success  in  organizing  the  Berlin  Society,  regarded 
themselves  as  entitled  to  especial  consideration. 

During  the  year  intervening  between  the  meetings  of  the 
Frankfort  and  Breslau  Conferences,  the  Berlin  Association 
had  waxed  in  strength,  had  held  services  of  a  reform  char- 
acter and  had  become  more  and  more  conscious  of  its  im- 
portance as  a  factor  in  the  religious  life  of  the  Jews  of  the 
German  capital.  This  is  apparent  in  the  communication 
addressed  to  the  third  rabbinical  Conference  held  at  Bres- 
lau. *  A  note  of  self -consciousness  rings  throughout  the 
address;  the  two  bodies  are  spoken  of  as  of  equal  import- 
ance for  the  advancement  of  Judaism— the  Conference  from 
the  theoretical,  and  the  society  from  the  practical  side. 
The  Conference  is  also  instructed  as  to  what  its  functions 
should  be,  the  writers  of  the  address  assuming  the  role  of 
mentor.  The  Conference  did  not  reply  to  the  address,  but 
adopted  the  following  resolution  offered  by  the  president, 
Abraham  Geiger :  ' '  Since  lack  of  time  permits  our  giving 
sufficient  attention  to  the  framing  of  an  answer  to  the  ad- 
dress of  the  Berlin  Reform  Association ;  since,  further,  this 

1  Protololle  der  dritten  V  ersammlung  deutscher  Edbbiner,  13-15. 


346  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

address  contains  neither  resolution  nor  questions  which  de- 
mand an  answer;  and  since  finally  it  appears  sufficiently 
from  our  deliberations  and  conclusions  in  regard  to  the 
Sabbath  that  the  views  of  the  Conference  differ  widely  from 
those  which  as  we  believe  guide  the  preliminary  steps  of 
the  Association,  the  Conference  concludes  that  this  com- 
munication may  as  well  be  left  unanswered. ' ' 1  Reference 
is  made  here  to  the  attitude  of  the  Reform  Association  on 
the  question  of  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  from  Saturday 
to  Sunday,  which  will  be  considered  in  its  proper  place. 
This  resolution,  which  all  the  members  present  favored, 
with  the  exception  of  four  (Philippson,  Holdheim,  Hess 
and  A.  Adler),  shows  very  clearly  that  the  two  bodies  had 
drifted  far  apart.  Although  this  is  not  stated  in  the  reso- 
lution, the  rabbis  could  not  but  resent  the  patronizing  tone 
of  the  address,  which  read  a  lesson  to  the  Conference. 
The  Breslau  Conference  being  the  last  of  the  rabbinical 
gatherings,  all  official  connection  between  the  two  bodies 
ceased  naturally ;  there  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  that  had 
the  Conference  met  at  Mannheim  in  1847,  as  had  been  in- 
tended, there  would  have  been  no  further  communication 
received  from  the  Reform  Association  in  view  of  the 
cavalier  treatment  which  the  address  to  the  Breslau  Confer- 
ence had  received. 

After  it  had  been  resolved  not  to  wait  until  the  synod 
should  become  an  actuality,  but  to  proceed  at  once  towards 
instituting  a  provisional  service  to  meet  local  needs,  mat- 
ters were  hurried  during  the  summer  of  1845  to  perfect 
arrangements  for  holding  services  on  the  ensuing  fall  holi- 
days. The  presence  in  Berlin  of  a  number  of  the  rabbis 
who  had  stopped  there  on  their  journey  homeward  from 
the  Frankfort  Conference  led  to  their  being  invited  into 
consultation  with  the  trustees;  these  rabbis  were  Geiger, 
Salomon,  Hirsch,  Frankfurter,  and  Jolowicz.  The  com- 
mittee to  whom  the  preparation  of  the  service  for  the  holi- 

1  ProtoTcolle  der  dritten  Versammlung  deutscher  Eabbiner,  290. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  347 

days  was  entrusted  consisted  of  Stern,  Rebenstein,  Simion, 
and  Lesser.  This  committee  suggested  radical  departures 
from  the  traditional  service  of  the  synagogue.  These  sug- 
gestions were  concurred  in  by  the  trustees  and  carried  out 
in  the  service.  They  were : 

1.  The  use  of  the  vernacular  in  the  entire  service  with 
the   exception   of  a   few   passages,  viz.,   the   Sh'ma,   the 
Q'dushah,  W'nislach,  and  the  priestly  benediction,  which 
were  to  be  read  in  both  Hebrew  and  German. 

2.  The    dispensing    with    the    blowing    of    the    shofar 
(ram's  horn)  on  New  Year's  Day. 

3.  An  intermission   of   several  hours  on  the  Day   of 
Atonement  between  the  morning  and  afternoon  services, 
during  which  intermission  addresses  were  to  be  delivered. 

4.  Worship  with  uncovered  head,  although  the  wearing 
of  a  black  skull  cap  was  to  be  permitted  to  individuals. 

5.  The  discontinuance  of  the  use  of  the  Tallith. 

6.  The  priestly  benediction  to  be  pronounced,  not  by 
the  so-called  Aaronides,  but  by  the  preacher  and  the  choir. 

7.  The  use  of  female  voices  in  the  choir;  and 

8.  The  seating  of  men  and  women  on  the  same  floor, 
provided  only  that  the  former  occupy  the  left,  the  latter 
the  right  side  of  the  auditorium. 1 

These  were  in  truth  radical  and  far-reaching  changes 
and  innovations  and  the  boldness  wherewith  they  were 
inaugurated  stamps  these  Berlin  reformers  as  being  indeed 
intrepid  pioneers  who  gave  practical  form  to  the  thoughts 
which  many  were  thinking,  but  yet  did  not  dare  translate 
into  action.  The  question  of  the  service  in  the  vernacular 
had  been  discussed  fully  at  the  Frankfort  Conference. 2 
Reformers  everywhere  were  quite  agreed  that  German  must 
be  used  in  the  public  services;  the  Hamburg  temple  con- 
gregation had  taken  the  first  steps  in  introducing  German 
prayers,  although  a  large  portion  of  the  service  was  still 

1  Levin,  Die  Reform  des  Judenthums,  43.     Berlin,  1895. 

2  Supra,  235  ff. 


348  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

read  in  Hebrew;  the  Berlin  reformers  made  their  service 
a  German  service  with  the  very  smallest  sprinkling  of 
Hebrew  phrases,  these  being  rendered  also  in  German.  The 
principle  whereby  they  were  guided  was  to  have  a  service 
that  could  be  understood  and  participated  in  by  the  people ; 
Hebrew  had  become  unintelligible  to  the  great  majority. 
Man  must  pray  in  a  language  he  understands  if  his  prayers 
are  to  be  not  mere  lip  service ;  the  retention  of  the  Hebrew 
in  such  phrases  as  the  Sh'ma,  the  Q'dushah  and  the  like 
was  for  the  purpose  of  reminiscence;  the  Jew  should  be 
able  to  speak  in  the  original  tongue  the  great  watchwords. 
The  principle  involved  has  been  acknowledged  to  be  correct ; 
even  in  conservative  congregations  prayers  in  the  vernac- 
ular have  been  introduced  quite  generally;  it  is  now 
merely  a  question  of  how  much. 

The  abolition  of  the  blowing  of  the  shofar  (ram's  horn) 
on  the  New  Year's  Day  was  a  startling  change.  The  step 
was  taken  not  because  a  principle  was  involved,  but  for 
aesthetic  reasons.  Awe-inspiring  as  was  the  sounding  of 
the  shofar  for  the  Jew  of  old,  to  whom  its  reverberating 
tones  brought  thoughts  of  God's  judgments,  it  aroused  no 
such  emotion  in  the  breast  of  the  Berlinese  Jew  of  1845 ;  it 
called  forth  a  smile  rather  than  religious  ecstacy,  and  dis- 
turbed rather  than  heightened  devotion.  Sentimental 
reminiscence  bore  little  weight  with  these  reformers  of 
Berlin ;  they  aimed  for  an  intellectual  service— mind  rather 
than  heart  was  to  be  satisfied.  *  The  shofar  aroused  no 
response  in  the  modern  worshiper ;  therefore  let  it  go  by 
the  board.  One  of  the  rabbis  who  was  present  at  the  meet- 
ing justified  the  abolition  of  the  blowing  of  the  shofar  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  no  longer  fitting  at  this  day,  and  that 
we  no  longer  know  exactly  what  the  Biblical  shofar  was. 

1 ' '  Their  aim  was  the  establishment  of  a  German  Jewish  church 
for  whose  inner  development  no  traditional  laws  should  signify,  but 
only  the  free  creative  religious  consciousness  of  the  present  as  it 
was  now  developing."  Honigmann,  op.  cit.,  179. 


THE  EEFOKM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEBLIN     349 

The  Berlin  reformers  were  brave  enough  to  refuse  to  hide 
behind  such  a  subterfuge;  "not  because  the  real  Biblical 
shofar  is  no  longer  known  to  us,  but  because  the  religious 
idea  upon  which  its  use  in  the  service  is  based  no  longer 
appeals  to  us,  and  because  the  whole  psychological  mechan- 
ism, thanks  to  which  the  shofar  was  so  essential  a  portion 
of  the  service  in  Biblical  times,  has  passed  away  forever, 
the  shofar  has  become  impossible  for  us.  If  the  prophet 
Elijah  were  to  appear  among  us  and  show  us  the  Biblical 
shofar,  we  would  say  with  the  Talmud  tf  pyDMP  pK,  be- 
cause the  people  have  lost  all  sense  of  receptivity  for  it. 
If  this  sense  could  be  resurrected,  it  would  be  different. 
But  as  long  as  this  is  not  the  case,  it  makes  no  difference 
what  the  Biblical  shofar  really  was,  nor  what  the  Biblical 
idea  was  whereon  it  was  based.  The  only  point  to  be  taken 
into  consideration  is  that,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  no 
religious  idea  can  be  connected  in  a  natural,  i.  e.,  psycho- 
logico-aesthetic  way,  with  the  conventional  blowing  of  the 
shofar  in  the  synagogue  on  New  Year's  Day."  1 

Some  of  the  most  significant  and  characteristic  portions 
of  the  liturgy  of  the  New  Year's  Day  are  connected  with 
the  blowing  of  the  shofar.  The  Berlin  reformers  were  as 
extreme  in  their  position  as  were  the  strict  traditionalists 
in  theirs.  The  past  and  the  ceremonials  that  grew  up 
therein  cannot  be  disregarded  entirely  in  any  religion 
which,  like  Judaism,  has  existed  for  many  centuries.  If  a 
ceremony  has  lost  all  power  of  arousing  religious  emotion, 
its  day  is  certainly  over ;  but  if  it  can  be  so  re-interpreted 
as  to  comport  with  the  religious  outlook  of  later  man,  it 

1Holdheim  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  143,  144,  repeated  approvingly  by  the 
present  minister  of  the  congregation,  Dr.  M.  Levin,  in  his  Eeform 
dcs  Judcnthums,  published  on  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  founda- 
tion of  the  congregation  as  a  jubilee  memoir,  p.  94.  Geiger,  Nach- 
gelassene  ScJiriften,  I,  228  (1861),  concedes  that  the  shofar  might 
well  be  replaced  by  earnest,  uplifting  music,  but  advises  that  the  old 
tones  be  retained  to  the  exclusion,  however,  of  too  frequent  blowing 
as  had  become  customary  in  the  New  Year's  service. 


350  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

should  be  used  and  retained.  This  is  possible  with  the 
blowing  of  the  shofar,  as  was  made  evident  by  David  Ein- 
horn  in  his  service  for  the  New  Year 's  Day, 1  and  by  the 
American  reform  rabbis,  who  compiled  the  Union  Prayer- 
Book.  These  combined  past  and  present  in  this  matter  in 
a  felicitous  manner  and  show  a  truer  grasp  of  the  problem 
than  did  the  Berlin  reformers  of  1845. 

Another  startling  innovation  was  the  worshiping  with 
uncovered  heads.  Although  this  has  become  general  in  the 
reform  congregations  in  the  United  States, 2  the  Berlin  re- 

*In  his  prayer-book  TIED  rfy  *  his  classical  rendering  of  the  sub- 
lime prayer  of  the  traditional  liturgy  rp^3J  P1DK  ends  stirringly  with 
the  blowing  of  the  shofar.  In  the  Union  Prayer-Book  the  traditional 
prayers  fmuitf,  manat  and  JTP^tt  are  cast  in  modern  garb,  each 
prayer  ending  with  the  sounding  of  the  shofar ;  the  combined  effect 
of  prayer,  blowing  of  the  shofar  and  music  is  inspiring. 

3  The  Emanuel  congregation  of  New  York  contemplated  instituting 
this  reform  in  1859.  The  advice  of  the  rabbi,  Dr.  S.  Adler,  was 
sought.  In  his  response  he  discussed  the  question  thoroughly,  both 
from  the  scientific  and  the  practical  standpoints.  It  was  published 
under  the  caption  Das  Entblosste  Eaupt  in  Geiger's  Jiidische 
Zeitschrift  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  III,  189-196;  see  also 
Geiger,  ibid.,  141-3,  where  he  quotes  from  mediaeval  writers  to  the 
effect  that  the  Jews  of  France  worshiped  with  uncovered  heads  in 
the  thirteenth  century;  see  also  Low,  Eine  Vorlesung  iiber  Barhaup- 
tiglceit  in  Gesammelte  Schriften,  II,  311-328.  The  first  reformer  to 
touch  the  subject  was  Aaron  Chorin,  of  Arad,  in  1826,  in  his  Iggeret 
Elassaf.  Holdheim  wrote  in  reference  to  this  custom  that  even 
"if  Bible  and  Talmud  had  forbidden  it  expressly,  they  would  simply 
have  given  expression  to  their  Oriental  point  of  view,  and  hence 
they  would  have  commanded  it  for  the  Occidental  Jews  and  have 
forbidden  the  opposite."  Quoted  in  Levin,  Reform  des  Judenthums, 
95.  Berlin,  1895.  See  also  article,  ' '  Bareheadedness, "  in  Jewish 
Encyclopaedia.  M.  Hellwitz,  presiding  officer  of  the  Jewish  Con- 
sistory of  Westphalia,  delivered  an  address  in  1847  entitled  Das 
uribedeckte  Haupt  (The  Uncovered  Head),  wherein  he  advocated  the 
adoption  of  this  reform.  One  congregation,  that  of  Soest,  followed 
the  suggestion,  but  permitted  any  individual  member  who  had 
scruples  in  the  matter  to  continue  worshiping  with  covered  head. 
Cf.  also  G.  Deutsch,  Huben  und  Driiben,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXIV  (1900), 
427. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEBLIN     351 

form  congregation  remains  in  solitary  isolation  among  the 
congregations  of  Europe.  At  best  this  is  an  Oriental  cus- 
tom and  accentuates  the  Oriental,  national,  particularistic 
interpretation  of  Judaism.  The  chief  argument  advanced 
against  the  worship  with  uncovered  heads  is  that  it  is  an 
imitation  of  Chuqqath  Hagoyim  (the  custom  of  the  Gen- 
tiles). But  even  a  mediaeval  rabbi  said  that  it  is  for- 
bidden only  to  imitate  the  degrading  and  disgraceful  cus- 
toms of  surrounding  peoples,  not  such  as  are  of  a  contrary 
character.  Our  Occidental  habit  is  to  show  respect  by  the 
uncovering  of  the  head,  as  it  is  the  Oriental  habit  to  keep 
the  head  covered,  and  to  have  laid  so  much  stress  upon 
this  one  custom  as  has  been  the  case  in  the  controversies 
between  reform  and  orthodoxy,  showed  a  singular  misap- 
prehension of  the  significance  of  reform,  whose  program 
from  the  very  start  was  to  reconcile  the  religion,  its  services, 
its  ceremonies,  and  its  practices  with  the  life  the  Jew  was 
living  and  the  thoughts  he  was  thinking  in  the  modern 
world.  To  keep  the  synagogue  Oriental  with  an  entire 
Hebrew  service,  worship  with  covered  heads,  separation  of 
the  sexes,  while  the  Jew  in  all  things  outside  of  the  Syna- 
gogue was  Occidental,  was  to  institute  a  divorce  between  the 
synagogue  and  life  which  could  not  but  be  detrimental  to 
the  best  interests  of  Judaism.  This  the  reform  mo\ement 
wished  to  avoid,  and  this  it  has  avoided  in  the  one  land 
where  it  had  had  the  opportunity  for  free  and  unrestricted 
development— the  United  States. 

The  reform  involved  in  having  the  priestly  blessing  pro- 
nounced by  the  preacher  in  place  of  by  the  so-called 
Aaronides  was  very  significant.  It  severed  the  only  link  1 

1  Other  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic  legislation  touching  the  priest- 
hood persisted  in  the  life  of  the  Jewish  communities  without  the 
synagogal  service  proper,  e.  g.,  the  ransoming  of  the  first  born  by  the 
priest  (pn  jne),  the  prohibition  to  the  priest  to  touch  a  dead  body 
lest  it  make  him  unclean,  the  prohibition  to  marry  a  divorced  woman, 
etc.,  etc.  Through  these  things  the  descendants  of  the  ancient 
priestly  families  continued  to  be  considered  a  special  order.  The 


352  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

that  bound  the  service  in  the  synagogue  to  the  sacrificial 
priestly  polity  of  the  ancient  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  and 
was  the  practical  demonstration  that  these  reformers  had 
repudiated  in  practice  as  well  as  in  thought  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  restoration  of  the  hereditary  Aaronic  priesthood 
as  ministers  at  the  altar  of  a  temple  to  be  rebuilt  on  the 
site  of  the  erstwhile  temple  on  Moriah's  hill  at  the  time  of 
the  rehabilitation  of  the  Jewish  state  under  the  leadership 
of  a  personal  Messiah.  In  honesty  they  could  not  do  oth- 
erwise. The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  part  and  parcel  of 
the  sacrificial  system  which  even  Maimonides  had  declared 
to  have  been  merely  preparatory  and  educative.  True,  the 
Mussaf  prayers  in  the  traditional  liturgy  had  contained 
the  petition  for  the  restoration  of  the  sacrifices ;  but  the  re- 
formers in  the  discussion  on  the  liturgy  at  the  Frankfort 
Conference  had  agreed  that  this  must  be  eliminated  as  no 
longer  expressive  of  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Jew.  With 
the  sacrificial  system  the  priesthood  in  Judaism  rose  and 
fell.  If,  after  the  destruction  of  sacrificial  altar  and 
temple,  the  descendants  of  the  old  priestly  families  still  re- 
tained the  prerogative  of  coming  forward  to  the  raised 
platform  in  the  synagogue  and  pronouncing  the  priestly 
blessing  (Numb.  vi.  24-26),  this  was  because  the  expecta- 
tion abided  with  the  people  that  at  the  time  of  Israel's  re- 
turn to  Palestine  these  priestly  families  would  again  resume 
their  ancient  position  as  the  religious  aristocracy  of  the 
nation  with  special  duties  and  privileges.  But  reform 
emphasized  that  other  traditional  doctrine  of  Judaism,  viz., 
the  priesthood  of  the  whole  people  (Ex.  xix.  6)  as  over 
against  the  priesthood  of  a  hereditary  class.  To  the  sacri- 
ficial system,  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  the  Palestinian  state, 
the  personal  Messiah,  reform  opposed  the  service  of  prayer, 
the  priesthood  of  the  whole  people,  the  countries  of  the 

reform  movement  transferred  definitely  the  idea  of  the  priesthood 
from  this  special  class  to  the  whole  people.  Cf.  on  this  subject 
Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  42. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN     353 

world  as  fatherlands,  the  Messianic  era.  For  this  reason 
the  Berlin  reform  congregation,  and  in  its  wake  all  the  re- 
form congregations,  removed  the  last  vestige  of  priestly 
prerogative  from  the  public  service  by  eliminating  the 
pronouncement  of  the  priestly  benediction  by  the  reputed 
descendants  of  Aaron,  found  among  the  Jewish  communi- 
ties everywhere.  The  rabbi  had  taken  practically  the  place 
of  the  priest  as  the  religious  guide  in  Jewry  since  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem.  The  few  distinc- 
tive traits  and  functions  which  continued  to  adhere  to  the 
Aaronides  were  mere  survivals.  As  long  as  the  Messianic 
hope  of  Israel  culminated  in  the  return  to  Palestine,  the 
restoration  of  the  Jewish  state  and  the  ancient  service  in  a 
reconstructed  Temple,  there  was  reason  for  the  continuance 
of  these  priestly  distinctions ;  but  when  the  Messianic  doc- 
trine was  interpreted  in  its  universalistic  significance,  this 
reason  fell  away ; 1  hence  this  change  introduced  by  the 
Berlin  reformers  rested  on  the  basis  of  a  far-reaching 
principle,  and  was  an  indication  of  the  different  point  of 
view  assumed  by  reform  in  this  all-important  matter  of 
the  Messianic  outlook. 2 

The  other  point  wherein  this  congregation  was  a  pioneer 
was  in  the  action  taken  in  reference  to  the  religious  position 
of  woman.  When  the  reform  was  introduced  of  seating 
men  and  women  on  the  same  floor  of  the  house  of  worship, 
the  first  step  was  taken  towards  the  religious  emancipation 
of  woman.  True,  the  rabbinical  Conference  of  Frankfort 
had  considered  the  subject,  and  Einhorn  there  had  spoken 
lofty  words  in  behalf  of  woman's  equality  with  man  in  the 

1  The  congregation  gave  practical  evidence  of  this  interpretation 
of  Israel's  mission  by  discarding  in  1847  the  observance  of  Tisha 
b  'ab,  the  annual  fast  day,  commemorative  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem;  on  the  Sunday  following  Holdheim,  in  his  sermon,  de- 
clared that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  really  the  beginning  of 
Israel's  larger  mission  to  the  world  and  had  therefore  resulted  in 
good.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  503. 

2Cf.  Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  I,  227. 
23 


354  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

religious  life  of  the  synagogue.  *  The  Berlin  congregation 
by  its  resolution  gave  practical  effect  to  such  suggestions. 
In  man's  complete  assumption  of  all  public  religious  func- 
tions the  Oriental  origin  of  the  synagogue  was  apparent. 
The  gallery,  to  which  woman  was  relegated,  was  a  survival 
of  the  Oriental  notion  of  woman's  inferiority.  Yet  al- 
though woman  was  excluded  from  all  active  participation 
in  public  religious  functions,  and  had  to  content  herself 
with  being  a  silent  spectator  and  auditor  in  the  gallery, 
still  in  the  Jewish  home  her  sway  was  supreme. 2  But  this 
contradiction  between  woman's  position  in  the  synagogue 
and  in  the  home  was  unnatural  under  Occidental  condi- 

1  Supra,  309.  Cf .  also  Geiger,  Die  Stellung  des  weiblichen  Geschlechts 
in  dem  Judenthume  unserer  Zeit,  Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  filr 
jiidische  Theologie,  III  (1837),  1-14.  As  this  was  possibly  the  first 
note  sounded  for  the  religious  emancipation  of  the  Jewish  woman, 
the  closing  words  of  the  article  may  be  reproduced:  "Let  there  be 
from  now  on  no  distinction  between  duties  for  men  and  women, 
unless  flowing  from  the  natural  laws  governing  the  sexes;  no  as- 
sumption of  the  spiritual  minority  of  woman,  as  though  she  were 
incapable  of  grasping  the  deep  things  in  religion;  no  institution  of 
the  public  service,  either  in  form  or  content,  which  shuts  the  doors 
of  the  temple  in  the  face  of  woman ;  no  degradation  of  woman  in  the 
form  of  the  marriage  service,  and  no  applying  the  fetters  which  may 
destroy  woman's  happiness.  Then  will  also  the  Jewish  girl  and  the 
Jewish  woman,  conscious  of  the  significance  of  the  faith,  become 
fervently  attached  to  it,  and  our  whole  religious  life  will  profit  from 
the  beneficial  influence  which  feminine  hearts  know  how  to  bestow 
upon  it."  In  1846  the  Israelitish  Council  of  Schwerin  issued  a 
mandate  which  stated  that  women  shall  be  considered  on  an  equal 
religious  footing  with  men,  their  admission  to  confirmation  being 
tantamount  to  the  declaration  of  their  religious  majority.  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
XI,  28.  In  that  same  year  Holdheim  declared  that  woman  was 
admissible  to  minyan,  that  is,  that  she  could  be  counted  as  one  of 
the  ten  whose  presence  was  considered  necessary  before  divine  service 
could  be  begun.  Voice  of  Jacob,  VI,  123. 

2Frankel,  Grundlinien  des  mosaisch  talmudischen  Eherechts, 
XXIX;  Perles,  Bousset's  Religion  des  Judenthums  im  neutesta- 
mentliche  Zeitalter  Tcritisch  untersucht,  91;  Abrahams,  Jewish  Life 
in  the  Middle  Ages,  115.  Philadelphia,  1896. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BEELIN     355 

tions.  The  segregation  of  the  women  in  a  gallery  was 
repugnant  to  the  ideas  and  ideals  of  an  age  of  emancipation 
and  strivings  after  equality.  Here  again  the  Orientalism  of 
the  synagogue  had  to  give  way  to  the  stress  of  the  new 
thought  and  the  new  life.  The  truth  of  the  matter  was 
that  the  Jewish  woman  had  entered  a  new  kingdom.  She 
as  well  as  the  man  was  affected  by  her  surroundings.  To 
her  as  well  as  to  her  father,  her  husband,  and  her  brother, 
the  new  voices  were  calling  and  she  desired  to  take  active 
part  in  the  forward  movement.  To  refuse  to  heed  this  desire 
was  to  extend  the  already  wide  breach  between  the  syna- 
gogue and  life  in  this  regard.  And  what  a  precious  ally 
has  not  woman  become  in  the  religious  life  of  such  com- 
munities where  she  has  been  given  the  opportunity  to  serve 
in  the  cause  of  Judaism !  In  the  Berlin  congregation  the 
men  and  women  are  not  seated  together,  simply  because 
this  is  not  the  Continental  custom;  family  pews  in  the 
synagogue  were  introduced  by  a  congregation  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic. 1  This  innovation  has  been  followed 
by  all  the  reform  and  many  conservative  congregations  in 
the  United  States,  while  the  Berlin  Reform  Congregation 
still  continues  as  the  only  congregation  in  Europe  that  has 
dispensed  with  the  woman's  gallery. 2  In  theory  the  con- 
gregations of  the  Old  World  hold  to  the  Oriental  conception 
of  woman 's  religious  inferiority  as  codified  in  the  Shulchan 
Aruk;  but  do  the  paragraphs  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk  on  the 
position  of  woman  express  the  view  of  modern  man  ?  This 
is  the  only  test.  Here  again  so-called  orthodoxy  makes 
the  unpardonable  error  of  professing  what  it  does  not 

1  The  congregation  Anshe  Emeth  of  Albany,  New  York,  under  the 
leadership  of  Isaac  M.  Wise  in  1851;  see  Eeminiscences  of  Isaac  M. 
Wise,  edited  by  the  author,  212.  Cincinnati,  1901. 

a  The  Jewish  Eeligious  Union  of  London,  founded  in  1902,  gave  as 
one  of  the  reasons  for  its  establishment  the  continued  separation  of 
the  sexes  in  the  synagogue  with  the  implied  inferiority  of  woman. 
In  the  Sabbath  afternoon  services  of  the  Union  the  men  and  women 
sit  together. 


356  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

practice.  Only  within  the  synagogue  does  it  continue 
Oriental,  without  it  clasps  hands  with  all  the  interests  of 
western  life;  only  within  the  synagogue  does  it  relegate 
woman  to  the  gallery,  without  she  asserts  her  place ;  surely 
here  again  reform  has  followed  the  truer  way  and  has 
solved  correctly  the  question  of  woman's  place  in  the  syn- 
agogue in  the  new  life  whereupon  Jewry  entered  after  the 
emancipation  from  mediaeval  conditions  had  been  achieved. 
During  the  summer  of  1845  the  ritual  committee  was 
diligently  at  work  preparing  for  the  first  services  to  be 
held  by  the  Association  on  New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day 
of  Atonement  (Oct.  1,  2,  and  10).  The  Prayer-Book  ar- 
ranged by  the  committee  for  these  holidays  differed  rad- 
ically from  the  traditional  ritual  and  the  plan  by  which  they 
were  guided  in  their  work  was  set  forth  in  an  explanatory 
statement  which  accompanied  the  Prayer-Book  when  it 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  members  of  the  association ; 
the  salient  paragraphs  of  this  statement  were  as  follows: 
''We  have  departed  radically  from  existing  forms,  varied 
though  they  be ;  but  we  have  been  concerned  all  the  more 
to  have  our  prayers  express  definitely  the  religious  convic- 
tion that  is  characteristic  of  Judaism  and  to  make  clear  the 
significance  of  these  holy  days  in  a  manner  to  appeal  to 
the  consciousness  of  living  men.  Our  religious  service 
should  not  be  of  such  a  general  character  as  to  attract  any 
and  all  men ;  but  it  should  be  such  a  one  as  is  rooted  in  the 
definite  religious  experience  of  Judaism.  Although  it 
attempts  to  free  itself  from  all  traces  of  national  separa- 
tion, yet  it  does  not  surrender  its  peculiar  religious  devel- 
opment, and  therefore  looks  back  just  as  joyfully  to  its 
past,  in  which  it  was  called  to  be  the  bearer  of  an  eternal 
truth,  as  it  looks  forward  confidently  to  the  promise  of  the 
future  when  all  mankind  will  recognize  and  worship  the 
one  invisible  God.  We  have  borne  in  mind  the  need  and 
the  outlook  of  our  generation  in  our  arrangement  of  the 
external  form  of  the  service  and  at  the  same  time  have  at- 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEELIN  357 

tempted  in  the  content  of  our  prayers  to  give  full  and  just 
recognition  to  the  unchanged  spirit  of  Judaism. ' ' x  The 
co-operation  of  Dr.  Ludwig  Philippson  of  Magdeburg  was 
enlisted  to  the  extent  that  he  consented  to  deliver  the 
sermons  at  the  holiday  services  for  which  this  first  pro- 
visional Prayer-Book  was  prepared. 

Not  only  the  ritual  for  this  opening  service  of  the  Asso- 
ciation, but  also  for  other  holidays  and  for  the  weekly 
service  which  was  instituted  in  the  course  of  time,  was  ar- 
ranged, because  of  the  pressing  and  immediate  need;  the 
Prayer-Book  therefore  was  not  the  result  of  slow  growth 
but  a  birth  of  the  hour.  Therefore  it  experienced  frequent 
changes  and  revisions. 2  As  has  been  stated,  the  earliest 
edition  of  the  Prayer-Book  (1845-6)  was  the  result  of  the 
labors  of  four  members  of  the  congregation.  After  Hold- 
heim  was  elected  rabbi  he  subjected  this  first  draft  of  the 
Prayer-Book  to  a  thorough  revision,  in  the  introduction  to 
which  he  set  forth  the  principles  whereby  he  was  guided 
in  constructing  the  new  edition. 

"Everywhere  the  national  and  dogmatically  narrowing 
point  of  view  had  to  yield  to  the  living  flow  of  the  purely 
human  and  truly  religious  thought, ' '  he  wrote  in  this  intro- 
duction; "for  a  noble,  truly  pious  nature,  belief  in  the 
universal  Father  of  mankind'  has  more  attractive  force  than 
the  belief  in  the  God  of  Israel,  the  doctrine  that  all  men 
are  created  in  the  image  of  God  is  of  higher  poetic  worth 
than  the  election  of  Israel.  The  teaching  of  a  universal 
law  of  human  brotherhood  and  love  for  the  neighbor  has 
greater  potency  than  a  particularistic  ceremonial  legisla- 
tion. The  belief  in  the  all-inclusive  covenant  with  man  as 
man  has  a  more  sanctifying  effect  than  that  in  an  exclusive 
covenant  between  Jehovah  and  his  first-born  son  Israel.  All 
these  ideas  subjectively  present  in  the  heart  of  the  Jewish 
people  have  their  great  historical  significance  preparatory 

1  /.  N.  J.,  VI,  349. 

2  Levin,  Die  Reform  des  Judenthums,  95-6. 


358  THE  EEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

to  the  later  course  of  the  development  of  the  human  race; 
as  such  they  offer  the  preacher  a  treasure  trove  of  religious 
thoughts  and  truths  as  well  as  significant  points  of  de- 
parture. But  they  should  not  be  permitted  to  confuse  the 
simple  notions  of  the  worshiper;  prayer  ought  to  be  a 
clear,  transparent  mirror  in  which  the  nature  of  the  wor- 
shiper is  reflected.  Above  all  else,  man  lives  in  the  present 
in  whose  mode  of  thought  and  expression  he  feels  most  at 
home.  Whatever  is  offered  him  from  out  the  past  should 
aim  to  make  the  comprehension  of  the  present  easier  and 
not  more  difficult. 

1  'As  for  the  newly  composed  prayers,  they  partake  alto- 
gether of  the  religious  spirit  of  the  present  age,  to  which 
Judaism  owes  its  re-awakening  and  resuscitation— the 
genius  of  our  day,  which  has  regenerated  and  recon- 
structed Judaism  completely.  If  Judaism  has  passed 
through  this  refining  process  and  has  retained  its  power, 
despite  all  the  destructive  campaigns  which  were  under- 
taken against  it  from  various  quarters,  such  as  stagnation 
and  negation,  then  indeed  we  may  be  proud  and  glad  to  be 
its  followers.  This  is  the  proper  place  to  declare  openly 
and  unreservedly  that  Judaism  contains  a  treasure  of  ideas 
and  sentiments  which  has  not  been  exhausted  by  far,  and 
that  these  are  clothed  in  forms  and  symbols  which  must  be 
brushed  aside  altogether  in  order  that  those  deeply-hidden 
ideas  and  sentiments  may  re-appear  in  their  original 
strength.  If  it  be  thought  that  these  forms  and  symbols 
must  be  piously  preserved  in  order  that  the  kernel  hidden 
in  them  may  be  gained  through  observing  them,  we  must 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  standpoint  of  reform  is 
this,  viz.,  to  appreciate  the  kernel  at  its  full  worth  and  to 
secure  it  by  breaking  the  shell;  to  use  these  symbols  and 
forms,  yes,  the  whole  history  of  Judaism  as  means  whereby 
to  distinguish  between  the  eternal  thoughts  and  the  transi- 
tory forms,  and  to  attribute  (relative)  religious  value  to 
those  forms  only  which  are  effective  for  the  presentation  of 


THE  EEFOBM  CONGEEGATION  OF  BEELIN     359 

the  thought  and  the  awakening  of  corresponding  senti- 
ments. The  diligent  reader  of  these  prayers,  who  is  not 
unacquainted  with  the  reform  strivings  of  the  recent  dec- 
ades, will  find  that  most  of  the  acquisitions  in  this  terri- 
tory, the  lofty  thoughts  and  sentiments  which  proved  them- 
selves to  be  truly  Jewish  (echt  judisch)  in  the  refining 
process  of  scientific  investigation,  have  been  combined  here 
into  a  beautiful  bond.  We  call  particular  attention  to 
such  prayers  as  have  for  their  themes,  the  holiness  of  God 
and  of  man,  the  priestly  mission  of  Israel,  the  purified 
Messianic  idea,  etc.,  etc." 

After  the  initial  service  on  the  holidays  in  the  autumn 
of  1845  the  leading  spirits  of  the  Association  met  frequent- 
ly during  the  ensuing  winter  to  secure  a  permanent  home 
for  the  Association  and  to  arrange  for  a  regular  weekly 
service.  The  most  animated  and  heated  discussion  cen- 
tered about  the  question  of  the  day  of  the  service,  whether 
this  should  be  the  traditional  Sabbath  or  the  civil  day  of 
rest.  The  resolution  as  finally  adopted  at  the  general  meet- 
ing of  the  Association  on  November  19, 1845,  was  that  steps 
be  taken  "to  hold  services  twice  a  week,  on  Saturday  and 
on  Sunday. ' ' *  Eventually  2  the  congregation  conducted 
services  only  on  Sunday,  and  still  does  so,  being  the  only 
congregation  in  Europe  where  this  is  the  case,  and  with  the 
exception  of  Sinai  congregation  of  Chicago,  the  only  Jew- 
ish congregation  in  the  world. 

The  active  steps  taken  to  secure  a  place  of  worship  were 
crowned  with  success,  and  on  April  2,  1846,  the  anniversary 
of  the  day  of  the  promulgation  of  the  famous  "Appeal," 
the  synagogue  was  dedicated.  Dr.  Samuel  Holdheim,  rabbi 

1  The  arguments  pro  and  con  in  this  vital  question  of  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  as  advanced  at  the  meetings  of  this  Berlin  Reform  Asso- 
ciation are  given  at  length  in  Holdheim 's  G.  J.  B.  G.  B.,  148-154, 
180-184.  They  are  not  reproduced  in  this  place  because  the  subject 
has  been  treated  in  the  chapter  on  the  Breslau  Conference,  where  the 
subject  was  discussed  at  length.  Supra,  282  ff. 

3  March,  1849. 


360  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  Mecklenburg-Schwerin  was  invited  to  deliver  the  dedi- 
catory sermon.  The  sermon  was  an  exposition  of  the  stand- 
point of  reform  Judaism;  the  preacher  contended  that  to 
remove  the  outworn  and  outgrown  was  not  enough;  this 
was  merely  the  negative  side  of  reform.  It  was  necessary 
to  nurse  the  positive  spirit,  to  retain  such  forms  as  still  had 
power  to  satisfy  the  religious  nature  of  modern  man,  and 
to  substitute  for  the  abrogated  forms  new  ones  expressive 
of  the  new  thought.  Man  can  be  freed  from  error  only  by 
truth,  not  by  another  error;  superstition  can  be  uprooted 
only  by  pure  faith,  not  by  unbelief ;  the  fetters  of  the  dead 
letter  can  be  loosened  only  by  the  living  spirit.  Only  a 
sincere  higher  degree  of  inner  religion  justifies  the  giving 
up  of  that  which  is  a  requirement  and  a  duty  in  a  lower 


The  dedicatory  exercises  attracted  a  large  and  enthu- 
siastic assemblage. 2  The  hostile  attitude  of  the  chief  con- 
gregation of  the  city  to  the  movement  became  known 
definitely  when  it  was  noted  that  the  elders,  though  invited 
to  attend,  were  not  present. £  The  members  of  the  reform 
Association  (it  was  not  yet  called  a  congregation)  were 
perforce  also  members  of  the  chief  congregation  from  the 
very  fact  that  they  were  confessing  Jews  and  had  to  con- 
tribute their  quota  towards  its  maintenance ;  they  had  as- 
sumed the  additional  burden  of  organizing  and  maintain- 
ing the  reform  association  because  of  their  conviction  that 
unless  some  such  steps  be  taken  Judaism  was  in  danger  of 
extinction.  At  this  point  the  various  attempts  made  by 
the  Association  to  define  the  relation  to  the  chief  congrega- 
tion and  to  secure  corporate  powers  as  an  institution 

recognized  by  the  state  may  be  mentioned.     Before  the  first 

• 

1Predigt  bei  der  am  2  April  stattgefundenen  Einweihung  des 
Gotteshauses  der  Genossenschaft  fiir  Reform  im  Judenthume.  Ber- 
lin, 1846. 

3  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  233. 

1 I.  N.  J.,  VII,  135-6. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN  361 

service  in  October,  1845,  could  be  held  the  permission  of  the 
government  had  to  be  secured.  The  Minister  of  Spiritual 
Affairs  (gcistige  Angelegenheiten)  at  this  time  was  Eich- 
horn,  a  man  of  liberal  spirit.  The  permission  to  hold  this 
service  and  also  the  subsequent  services  was  obtained.  It 
was  furthermore  known  that  the  Prussian  Government  was 
contemplating  the  promulgation  of  a  new  edict  in  re  the 
Jews  and  Judaism.  Inasmuch  as  the  liberal  spirit  seemed 
uppermost  in  government  councils,  it  was  hoped  by  the 
organizers  of  the  reform  association  that  the  new  decree 
would  contain  some  paragraph  making  provision  for  the 
permission  to  form  progressive  congregations  and  thus 
nullify  the  effects  of  the  notorious  rescript  of  December, 
1823,  which  had  stifled  the  reform  movement  in  Berlin. 
When  this  new  decree  of  July  23,  1847,  was  published, 1  it 
seemed  to  justify  the  hopes  of  these  reformers,  for  the 
fifty-third  paragraph  took  notice  of  just  such  a  condition 
of  affairs  as  existed  in  the  Berlin  community.  This  para- 
graph read :  ' '  If  disputes  touching  religious  conviction  and 
worship  arise  in  any  synagogue  which  have  for  their  aim 
the  formation  of  a  new  synagogue,  the  Minister  of  Spirit- 
ual, etc..  Affairs  and  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  are  em- 
powered, upon  the  petition  of  the  parties  interested,  to  ap- 
point a  commission  which  shall  aim  to  arbitrate  the  exist- 
ing differences.  If  the  conflict  cannot  be  settled  by  the 
decision  of  the  Commission,  the  Ministers,  guided  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Commission,  shall  decide  under  what  condL 
tions  either  the  inauguration  of  a  separate  service  or  the 
formation  of  a  new  congregation  is  to  be  granted  .  .  .  .  "  2 

1  Das   neue   Preussische   Judengesetz   gegeben   den   23   Juli,   1847, 
publicirt  den  5  Aug.,  1847,  nebst  aller  dazu  gehorigen  Ergdnzungs- 
gesetzen  und  einer  Geschichte  der  Judengesetze  in  Preussen.     Berlin, 
1847.     For  the  edicts  on  the  religious  affairs  of  the  Jews  of  Prussia 
up  to  1843,  see  Freund's  Die  l-irchlichen  Verhdltnisse  der  Juden  in 
Preussen   in   Zur   Judenfrage   in   Deutschland,   I,    117-124,    185-195. 
Berlin,  1843. 

2  Stern,  Was  ist  geschehen  und  was  ist  zu  thun?     7. 


362  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

This  decree  aroused  the  utmost  satisfaction  among  the 
members  of  the  reform  association,  and  finally,  after  a 
number  of  meetings,  a  resolution  was  adopted  at  a  meeting 
on  March  21,  1848,  to  the  effect  that  it  was  most  desirable 
that  they  form  an  autonomous  congregation,  and  not  be 
considered,  as  hitherto,  merely  a  society  composed  of  mem- 
bers of  the  chief  congregation.  The  stirring  political  events 
of  March,  1848,  prevented  the  calling  of  a  meeting  for  con- 
sultation with  the  officials  of  the  government  at  which  this 
resolution  of  the  society  was  to  be  discussed.  In  fact,  the 
matter  had  to  be  postponed  for  some  time  owing  to  the 
political  crisis  and  the  association  suffered  from  being  in 
a  state  of  uncertainty.  At  a  meeting  held  two  years  later, l 
on  March  30,  1850,  it  was  resolved  to  form  an  independent 
Jewish  congregation  and  to  petition  the  government  to 
grant  papers  of  incorporation  to  them  as  such  an  independ- 
ent congregation.  At  this  meeting,  too,  the  name  of  the 
organization  was  changed  to  Jewish  Reform  Congregation 
(Judische  Reformgemeinde'),  in  place  of  Jewish  Reform 
Association.  The  petition  for  incorporation  was  refused 
by  the  government  on  the  ground  that  the  congregation  had 
no  confession  of  faith,  and  the  state  could  not  recognize 
officially  any  religious  body  that  had  no  positive  confession 
of  faith.  When  this  answer  was  returned,  a  most  spirited 
and  interesting  debate  took  place  at  the  meeting  of  the 
directorate  on  the  point  as  to  whether  Judaism  has  a  fixed 
creed  or  no. 2  The  ' '  lay ' '  members  held  that  the  state 
officials  should  be  informed  that  the  request  for  a  confes- 
sion of  faith  could  not  be  complied  with,  since  Judaism 
lacks  this.  One  of  them  (Dr.  Bressler)  stated  that  "the 
positing  of  principles  is  altogether  un-Jewish.  Formerly 
he,  too,  had  considered  this  necessary,  but  he  had  seen  the 
error  of  this  view  and  had  repudiated  it."  Another  (Dr. 
Stern)  declared  that  "the  fixed  definition  of  principles 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XIV,  299. 

3  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  229-30. 


THE  EEFOEM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN     363 

contradicts  entirely  the  idea  of  development  which  lies  at 
the  very  basis  of  our  reform."  Stern  was  empowered  to 
frame  an  answer  to  the  government  along  these  lines. 
Holdheim  took  issue  with  the  ' '  lay ' '  members  on  this  point ; 
he  held  that  the  belief  in  definite  principles  did  not  ex- 
clude the  idea  of  development  and  that  * '  our  reform  touches 
only  the  dead  forms  of  Judaism,  but  not  its  inner  essence 
and  the  content  of  faith. ' '  Holdheim  was  as  much  opposed 
as  any  of  the  laymen  to  the  acceptance  of  a  fixed  creed  as 
a  condition  of  salvation. x  This  is  the  Christian,  not  the 
Jewish,  point  of  view,  and  therefore,  the  Christian  officials 
took  the  attitude  they  did.  The  point  on  which  Holdheim 
differed  with  the  laymen  was  that  principles  were  abso- 
lutely necessary  of  statement,  and  that  Judaism  having 
such  principles,  they  could,  should,  and  must  be  stated. 
There  is  a  wide  difference  between  a  creed  as  a  fixed  and 
necessary  condition  of  salvation  and  a  declaration  of  prin- 
ciples. 2  In  spite  of  Holdheim 's  protest  the  trustees 
adopted  as  the  answer  to  the  government  Stern's  formula- 
tion, as  follows:  "Judaism  has  no  binding  creed;  we  who 
have  taken  as  our  motto  Judaism's  capacity  for  develop- 
ment deem  it  out  of  the  question  to  disregard  the  inmost 
essence  of  Judaism  for  the  sake  of  obtaining  papers  of  in- 
corporation. "  Holdheim  now  framed  another  answer  on 
his  own  initiative;  his  statement  so  impressed  Simion  that 
he,  although  agreeing  with  Stern's  view,  recommended 
that  Holdheim 's  arguments  be  taken  into  consideration  and 
another  answer  be  framed.  The  form  of  the  answer  finally 
adopted  attempted  to  satisfy  both  views  by  declaring  that 
Judaism  has  no  set  creed,  and  monotheism  was  an  incon- 
trovertible principle  of  the  faith.  This  statement  did  not 
seem  to  satisfy  the  government  and  the  request  for  incor- 

1  See  Paragraphs  2  of  his  Beligionsprincipien  des  reformirten  Ju- 
denthums,  Berlin,    1847,   reproduced  in   its  entirety   in  Levin's  Die 
Seform  des  Judenthums,  55-88. 

2  Supra,  210. 


364  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

poration  as  an  independent  congregation  was  refused. 1 
This  refusal  of  the  government  to  incorporate  the  reform 
congregation  as  an  independent  religious  organization 
tacitly  acknowledged  the  claim  of  the  chief  congregation 
of  being  the  only  recognized  official  representative  Jewish 
religious  organization.  Strife  had  been  waging  for  some 
time  between  the  members  of  the  reform  congregation  and 
the  officials  of  the  chief  congregation;  in  June,  1848,  the 
former  had  resolved  not  to  pay  any  further  dues  to  the 
chief  congregation  on  the  ground  that  they  never  attended 
the  services  there  and  were  maintaining  one  congregation ; 
in  spite  of  the  repeated  demands  of  the  central  body,  they 
persisted  in  this  attitude,  until  the  aid  of  law  was  invoked 
by  the  officers  of  the  chief  congregation  and  the  delinquents 
thus  brought  to  terms. 2  Since  then  the  members  of  the 
reform  congregation  have  had  to  contribute  to  the  support 
of  both  organizations,  thus  making  material  sacrifices  in 
the  upholding  of  their  convictions.  This  hardship  un- 
doubtedly has  been  one  of  the  causes  why  the  reform  con- 
gregation has  not  grown  to  greater  proportions.  By  the 
law  of  the  state  every  confessing  Jew  is,  ipso  facto,  a  mem- 
ber of  the  chief  congregation  of  his  community,  and  must 
contribute  to  its  maintenance ;  if  he  wishes  to  belong  to  an 
independent  congregation  he  must  bear  the  additional 
burden  of  supporting  .this  and  thus  contribute  to  two 
organizations.  This  is  manifestly  unjust,  but  it  is  the  law 
of  the  land  in  Germany.  As  Dr.  Levin,  the  present 
preacher  of  the  Berlin  reform  congregation,  has  pointed 
out,  this  is  the  chief  reason  why  reformers  in  other  cities 
like  Dresden,  Leipzig,  Frankfort,  Pesth,  Vienna,  and 
smaller  cities  have  not  been  able  to  organize  reform  congre- 
gations, and  why,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  United  States, 
where  there  is  full  freedom  in  this  matter,  the  reform  move- 

1  For  a  full  account  of  this  whole  proceeding  see  Holdheim  >s  G.  J. 
E.  G.  B.,  229-235. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XIV,  223. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN     365 

ment  has  grown  to  such  generous  proportions. 1  The  Berlin 
reform  congregation  remains  to  this  day  the  only  official  re- 
form congregation  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 2  with  the 
exception  of  the  Hamburg  Temple.  It  was  organized  at 
a  time  of  great  exuberance  of  thought  and  high  enthusiasm 
of  feeling.  Its  creative  period  extended  over  some  ten 
years;  but  since  1854,  when  the  synagogue  in  the  Johan- 
nesstrasse,  which  the  congregation  still  occupies,  was  dedi- 
cated (September  10),  the  congregation  has  remained  well- 
nigh  stationary.  Holdheim  had  been  elected  preacher  in 
September,  1846 ;  a  year  later,  in  September,  1847,  he  was 
duly  inaugurated  as  such,  and  continued  in  office  until  his 
death  in  1860.  In  the  religious  school  which  was  established 
in  October,  1846,  the  youth  were  instructed  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  pure  Judaism  as  set  forth  in  his  Religionsprin- 
zipien  des  reformirten  Judenthums  and  in  his  catechism.3 
From  the  pulpit  he  preached  those  great  sermons  which  are 
a  mine  containing  the  treasures  of  religious  truth  as  con- 
ceived by  the  greatest  theologian  of  the  Jewish  reform 
movement.  In  1856  he  commenced  the  agitation  to  revise 
the  Prayer-Book,  and  submitted  suggestions  for  changes 
and  revisions.  He  claimed  that  the  Prayer-Book  was  too 
negative,  and  required  more  positive  features ;  true  reform 
and  development  consist,  not  in  ignoring  the  past,  but  in 
the  re-interpretation  of  old  institutions  and  ceremonies. 
However,  he  did  not  live  to  see  the  revision  of  the  Prayer- 
Book:  in  1878  a  revised  edition  of  the  holiday  services 
was  issued,  4  but  it  was  not  till  1883  that  a  new  edition 

1  Unser  Verlidltniss  zur  Gesammtjudenheit  in  Die  Reform  des  Ju- 
denthums, 98-9. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XLVI  (1883),  356. 

8  mSBl  mifl  Judische  Glaubens  und  Sittemlehre ;  this  was  used 
as  the  book  of  instruction  in  the  school  of  the  congregation  until 
1889,  when  it  was  superseded  by  the  catechism  prepared  by  I.  H. 
Ritter,  the  successor  of  Holdheim  in  the  rabbinical  office.  At  present 
the  book  in  use  for  this  purpose  is  Die  israelitische  Eeligionslehre 
systematisch  dargestelt,  by  M.  Levin,  the  rabbi  of  the  congregation. 

4  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1878,  292. 


366  THE  BEFOBSM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  whole  appeared.  This  edition  of  the  Praysr- 
Book  reverted  to  the  order  of  the  traditional  liturgy  of 
the  synagogue;  psalms  set  to  music  were  substituted  for 
the  introductory  chorals,  and  the  services  for  the  holidays 
were  characterized  not  only  by  prayers  which  set  forth  the 
ideas  connoted  by  these  days  as  had  been  the  case  hitherto, 
but  also  by  appropriate  Jewish  music  in  place  of  the  non- 
descript music  that  had  been  used.  Finally,  the  fiftieth 
anniversary  of  the  congregation  in  April,  1895,  was  the 
occasion  for  another  revision  of  the  Pray,er-Book.  This 
revision  was  directed  chiefly  to  the  hymns  which  were  made 
to  express  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Jewish  service. 
The  Prayer-Book  is  completely  in  the  vernacular,  with  the 
exception  of  a  few  sentences,  and  in  the  various  prayers 
expresses  the  ideas  and  aspirations  of  pure  religion  as 
embodied  in  the  Jewish  reform  movement,  maintaining, 
however,  the  framework  of  the  traditional  liturgy  of  the 
synagogue. 

The  prime  reason  for  the  formation  of  the  Berlin  reform 
congregation  lay  in  the  circumstance,  as  has  been  already 
stated,  that  the  chief  congregation  would  take  no  steps 
through  its  rabbis  and  official  representatives  towards  insti- 
tuting such  changes  in  the  services  and  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Jewish  doctrine  as  were  necessary  if  the  religion 
was  to  continue  as  an  influence  in  the  lives  of  men  and 
women  reared  in  an  atmosphere  altogether  different  from 
that  in  which  their  fathers  had  moved  and  breathed.  The 
organization  of  the  reform  congregation  affected  without 
doubt  the  course  of  the  chief  congregation,  where,  too,  re- 
forms have  been  introduced  gradually. *  Sermons  in  the 
vernacular  were  instituted  as  a  regular  feature  of  the  serv- 
ices with  the  election  of  M.  Sachs  as  rabbi  and  continue  to 
this  day  in  the  various  synagogues  built  in  different  sec- 
tions of  the  city  by  the  chief  congregation  ( Hauptgemein de ) . 
The  organ  has  been  introduced,  and  although  the  service 

1  Geiger,  Juden  in  Berlin,  204-5. 


THE  REFORM  CONGREGATION  OF  BERLIN     357 

continues  to  be  in  Hebrew,  still  is  it  very  apparent  that  a 
strong  liberal  or  reform  element  exists  among  the  members 
of  the  chief  congregation  and  in  the  directory.  The  con- 
test at  the  annual  election  of  representatives  is  occasionally 
very  spirited  as  between  the  liberal  and  the  conservative 
elements ;  this  appeared  notably  in  the  election  of  Novem- 
ber, 1901,  when  the  question  of  having  discourses  on  Sun- 
day *  for  the  benefit  of  the  great  numbers  who  cannot  at- 
tend on  Saturday  was  agitated.  Although  the  conserva- 
tives succeeded  in  electing  a  majority  on  the  board  of  repre- 
sentatives, still  was  the  liberal  vote  surprisingly  large. 
True,  official  Judaism  in  Berlin,  as  throughout  Germany, 
has  the  orthodox  stamp,  and  this  may  be  one  of  the  reasons 
for  the  many  defections  among  the  Jews  of  the  German 
capital  from  their  ancestral  faith.  The  religion  in  its 
traditional  guise,  as  represented  by  the  synagogue,  means 
nothing  to  them  as  men  of  modern  thought  and  culture; 
were  there  a  serious  attempt  in  the  synagogue  to  build  up 
a  theological  system  of  Jewish  thought  along  the  lines  of 
latter-day  acquisitions  in  the  domain  of  human  knowledge 
hundreds  and  thousands  to  whom  Judaism  is  merely  an 
antiquated  tradition  would  see  in  it  a  living  faith  with  a 
powerful  message  to  living  men. 2  What  is  needed  in  Ber- 
lin to-day,  yes,  throughout  Germany,  is  a  return  of  the 
spirit  of  the  reformers  of  the  fifth  decade  with  the  result 
that  the  messag.e  of  Judaism  be  interpreted  in  terms  of 
vital  significance  to  the  present  generation;  officially  the 
laws  as  codified  in  the  Slmlclian  Aruk  are  taught  as  the 
summum  of  Judaism ;  really  these  laws  are  disregarded  con- 
stantly and  continually;  there  can  be  no  healing  until 
the  official  and  the  real  reading  of  Judaism's  significance 
square  with  one  another.  True,  tradition  must  be  reckoned 

1  This  is  discussed  in  detail  infra,  Chapter  XIII. 

2  This  has  been  strongly  stated  in  a  recent  publication  by  Caesar 
Seligman,  rabbi  in   Frankf ort-on-the-Main ;    see  the   introduction   to 
his  Judenthum  und  moderne  W eltanschuung .     Frankfort,  1905. 


368  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

with  and  the  historical  forces  that  have  fashioned  the  de- 
velopment of  Jewish  life  must  be  considered;  but  above 
all,  present  conditions  must  be  the  determining  factor,  and 
some  harmonious  solution  which  shall  combine  the  living 
elements  in  inherited  views  and  customs  wdth  the  religious 
viewpoint  of  the  present  must  be  found;  this  is  the  pur- 
pose of  the  reform  movement.  Mistakes  have  been  made; 
many  reformers,  notably  those  of  the  Berlin  type,  whose 
work  has  been  discussed  in  this  chapter,  have  broken  too 
suddenly  and  completely  with  tradition;  much  had  been 
cast  away  as  mere  rubbish  that  still  had  vitalizing  power ; 
more  attention  was  given  to  lopping  off  abuses  than  to  re- 
constructing the  heritage  of  the  past  in  the  light  of  the 
present 's  needs ;  but  whatever  the  mistakes  in  the  practical 
cause  of  reform  may  have  been,  the  principle  at  the  heart 
of  the  reform  movement  is  sound,  and  the  issue  between 
the  traditionalists  and  the  reformers  is  clear.  For  the 
former  the  authority  of  Judaism  lies  in  a  written  code,  for 
the  latter  in  the  progressive  revelation  of  God  in  all  the 
ages,  the  present  included.  For  the  former  the  creative 
energy  of  Judaism  is  a  closed  incident,  for  the  latter  it  still 
operates  and  will  so  operate  through  all  time.  The  wheels 
of  progress  cannot  be  turned  backward,  and  true  reform, 
as  the  progressive  movement,  must  finally  reconcile  differ- 
ences. Basing  upon  and  teaching  the  essentials  of  the  re- 
ligion as  the  all-important,  it  shall  also  do  justice  to  the 
historic  spirit,  and  by  a  judicious  welding  of  these  two  ele- 
ments become  indeed  the  true  exponent  of  Judaism's  eter- 
nal message  as  it  addresses  itself  to  successive  ages. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  BEESLAU  "FKIENDS  OF  BEFOKM" 

How  similar  conditions  were  in  different  communities  at 
this  time  is  demonstrated  strikingly  by  the  fact  that  almost 
simultaneously  with  the  publication  of  the  Berlin  1 1  Appeal ' ' 
a  like  document  was  issued  in  Breslau.  Although  Geiger, 
the  rabbi  of  the  Breslau  community,  had  expressed  him- 
self frequently  and  constantly  in  favor  of  reform,  yet  had 
he  up  to  this  point  not  been  able  to  give  practical  expres- 
sion to  his  ideas;  his  position  was  delicate  and  difficult; 
the  congregation,  like  many  of  the  congregations  in  Ger- 
many, was  composed  of  many  elements  ranging  from  un- 
compromising rabbinism  to  outspoken  radicalism.  Geiger, 
reformer  though  he  was,  felt  that  he  was  the  rabbi  of  the 
whole  community,  and  made  haste  slowly;  he  instituted 
societies  like  the  "Lehr  und  Lese  Verein"  for  the  educa- 
tion of  the  participants  in  the  true  significance  of  Judaism, 
and  delivered  occasional  lectures  with  the  like  object  in 
view.  After  his  decided  victory  over  the  Tiktin  party  1  his 
hands  were  freer,  but  yet  in  the  practical  administration 
of  his  office  he  lagged  far  behind  the  advanced  standpoint 
which  it  was  known  that  he  occupied  theoretically.  For 
the  radical  Hotspurs  in  the  community  his  pace  was  too 
slow  altogether.  A  number  of  these  published  a  Declara- 
tion in  the  Breslauer  Zeitung  of  April  4,  1845, 2  in  which 
they  set  forth  their  absolute  lack  of  sympathy  with  the 
legalistico-nationalistic  conception  of  Judaism,  as  officially 

1  Supra,  Chapter  III. 

2  Kepublished  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  IX  (1845),  236-7;   I.  N.  J.,  VI,  131-2; 
see  also  Holdheim,  G.  J.  E.  G.  B.,  131. 

24  369 


370  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

represented  by  the  synagogue  and  their  desire  for  an  inter- 
pretation of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  faith  in 
accordance  with  the  outlook  of  the  men  of  their  generation. 
They  called  for  the  elimination  from  the  ritual  of  the 
prayers  for  the  coming  of  a  personal  Messiah  and  the  re- 
turn to  Jerusalem,  because  they  were  attached  with  all 
their  heart  and  soul  to  the  German  fatherland  and  its  in- 
terests, and  had  no  desire  to*  form  a  separate  state  in  the 
land  of  Palestine.  "  It  is  also  our  conviction  that  the  lofty 
religious  command  to  observe  a  weekly  day  of  rest  will  be 
of  significance  only  if  such  a  day  does  not  conflict  with  the 
duties  towards  the  state  and  the  demands  of  daily  life ;  the 
separatistic  dietary  laws  have  no  meaning  for  us,  since  they 
no  longer  connote  any  religious  idea,  nay,  they  convert 
true  religion  into  something  purely  external  and  lay  stress 
upon  the  appearance  rather  than  the  reality."  They  then 
call  attention  to  the  forthcoming  rabbinical  Conference 
and  urge  that  they  owe  a  statement  of  their  religious  be- 
liefs and  convictions  to  the  rabbis  in  order  that  these  may 
know  that  they  have  the  support  of  the  members  of  the 
congregations  if  they  take  steps  towards  reconciling  relig- 
ion and  life,  and  thus  removing  the  conflicts  that  were  be- 
coming sharper  and  more  pronounced  day  by  day.  By 
means  of  such  a  communication  to  the  Conference  they  hope 
to  attain  their  aim.  They  have  no  desire  nor  purpose  of 
leaving  the  existing  congregations  and  forming  a  separate 
congregation.  They  are  convinced  that  the  same  beliefs 
that  they  hold  touching  the  needs  of  the  hour  in  Judaism 
are  shared  by  many  others  and  that  the  reform  can  be 
achieved  from  within  and  become  general.  Therefore 
they  feel  it  a  holy  duty  to  address  the  Conference  in  the 
spirit  of  this  declaration,  assured  "that  they  speak  for 
many,  many  others  throughout  Jewry. 1 

This  publication  stirred  the  Jewish  community  of  Bres- 
lau  profoundly,  notably  the  bold  pronouncements  in  refer- 

1  Concerning  this  address  to  the  Frankfort  Conference,  supra,  266. 


THE  BEESLAU  "FEIENDS  OF  EEFOEM"  371 

ence  to  the  Messiah,  the  Sabbath,  and  the  dietary  laws. 
The  excitement  was  not  allayed  by  an  article  of  Geiger's 
in  a  succeeding  issue  of  the  Breslauer  Zeitung,  giving  the 
meed  of  recognition  to  the  bold  and  unequivocal  state- 
ments, but  advising  the  writers  to  proceed  cautiously;  he 
also  commended  their  purpose  to  address  the  rabbinical 
Conference.  Geiger's  article  added  fuel  to  the  flame,  be- 
cause he  apparently  approved  the  radical  measures;  the 
congregation  was  so  agitated  that  the  directory  felt  com- 
pelled to  address  Geiger  on  the  subject;  he  answered  by 
saying  that  he  did  not  approve  radical  measures  (meine 
Erklarung  die  es  bestimmt  aussprach,  dass  ich  auf  dem 
Wege  des  allmdhligen  Fortschrittes,  wie  bisher  fortfahren 
werde),  and  that  as  rabbi  he  held  himself  above  party;  the 
rabbi  must  have  the  whole  community  in  view,  and  in  an 
age  of  dissension  and  party  strife  must  aim  to  compromise, 
teach  and  stimulate. 1 

The  ' '  Friends  of  Reform ' '  sent  the  communication  to  the 
conference,  and  with  this  their  activity  ceased  for  the  time. 

In  the  spring  of  1846  a  committee  of  the  Berlin  Reform 
Association  appeared  in  Breslau  to  present  to  Geiger  a  call 
from  the  Association  to  fill  the  rabbinical  position  for  the 
organization.  Geiger  asked  for  time  to  consider  the  mat- 
ter, and  promised  an  answer  in  the  summer  after  the  meet- 
ing of  the  rabbinical  Conference  at  Breslau.  On  March 
19  he  addressed  a  communication  to  the  directory  of  his 
congregation  mentioning  these  facts.  He  wrote  in  detail 

1  Note  his  definition  of  the  rabbi 's  function  in  a  congregation  com- 
posed of  many  different  elements,  as  was  the  case  in  the  Breslau 
congregation — "Der  Eabbiner  welcher  es  mit  der  Gesammtgemeinde 
wohl  meint,  dem  das  religiose  Leben  aller  am  Herzen  liegt  wird 
innerhalb  der  schroffsten  Gegensatze  welche  gegenwartig  in  Leben 
und  Wissenschaft  sich  geltend  machen,  vermittelund,  belehrund,  an- 
regend  auftreten,  er  wird  iiber  den  Parteien  sich  zu  erhalten  bemiiht 
sein  und  je  schwieriger  dies  ihm  in  dem  heftigen  Drangen  der  Gegen- 
wart  ist  mit  um  so  grb'sserem  Ernste  muss  er  daran  halten."  I.  N. 
J.,  VI,  160. 


372  THE  KEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  discouraging  conditions  in  the  Breslau  congregation ; 
how  his  every  effort  towards  a  true  reform  had  met  with 
the  fiercest  opposition,  not  only  from  the  orthodox  bigots 
(this  was  to  be  expected),  but  from  men  from  whom  he  was 
justified  in  expecting  support  and  encouragement.  Con- 
stant efforts,  too,  were  being  put  forth  to  undermine  the 
confidence  of  the  congregation  in  him.  All  this  made  him 
doubt  the  wisdom  of  his  continuing  his  work  there :  '  *  A  po- 
sition without  honorable  recognition,  an  activity  without 
influence  has  no  charm  for  me. ' ' x 

On  March  28,  he  delivered  a  lecture  on  the  subject  "From 
Whom  Shall  Keforms  Proceed?"  (Von  Wem  sollen  Re- 
formen  ausgehent)  in  which  he  stated  that  reforms  must 
issue  from  both  rabbis  and  people.  Now  the  rabbis  had 
held  two  Conferences  and  had  suggested  various  reforms, 
but  the  congregations  had  not  carried  them  out ;  or  rather 
none  except  the  Berlin  Reform  Association;  he  therefore 
urged  that  its  example  be  followed.  After  Geiger  had 
finished,  Dr.  William  Freund 2  arose  and  arraigned  sar- 
castically the  rabbis  who  attempt  to  reform ;  the  rabbis  are 
like  the  enthusiasts  for  freedom,  but  the  rabbis  will  suc- 
cumb, just  as  did  the  Shill  Corps ;  the  Eeform  Association 
of  Berlin  is  composed  of  persons  who  know  nothing  of  relig- 
ion; for  thirty  years  they  have  had  no  religion,  but  now 
that  it  is  fashionable  to  be  religious,  they  cut  a  religion  to 
order.  Judaism  must  be  left  to  time  which  will  remove  that 
which  is  unnecessary;  reforming  is  dangerous  since  there 
is  practically  no  limit.  Geiger  answered  him  pointedly 
and  carried  the  assembly  with  him.  3 

lNachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  117. 

2  Freund  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  Jews  in  Germany  at  the 
time  and  a  publicist  of  note;  he  edited  the  magazine  Zur  Judenfrage 
in  Deutschland.  This  appeared  during  two  years,  1843-44,  and  con- 
tains a  number  of  notable  articles  by  Freund,  Eebenstein,  Holdheim, 
S.  Stern,  and  others.  His  antagonism  to  Geiger  was  most  surprising, 
since  the  two  men  had  been  on  an  intimate  footing,  and  besides 
Freund  had  been  supposed  to  be  in  complete  sympathy  with  the 
forward  religious  movement. 

8 1.  N.  J.,  VII,  279. 


THE  BEESLAU  "FEIENDS  OF  REFOEM"  373 

As  a  result  of  these  three  occurrences— the  call  to  Berlin, 
the  letter  to  the  directory,  and  the  lecture— the  outspoken 
reformers  were  roused  into  activity  a  second  time. '  A 
Reform  Association  similar  in  purpose  to  the  Berlin  Society 
was  formed,  and  on  March  30  issued  an  address  calling  for 
sympathizers  to  join  with  them.  In  this  address  attention 
is  -directed  to  the  fact  that  whereas  formerly  the  rabbis 
opposed  strenuously  every  reform,  now  there  are  in  Ger- 
many a  number  of  learned  and  earnest  religious  leaders 
who  recognize  the  great  requirements  of  the  time  and  whose 
hands  must  be  strengthened  by  the  support  of  the  people. 
These  rabbis,  too,  had  been  reproached  with  having  out- 
raged the  popular  sentiment  by  their  discussions  and  pro- 
posals at  the  Brunswick  and  Frankfort  Conferences.  It 
is  time  now  for  the  people  to  declare  their  confidence  in 
these  leaders  and  to  carry  into  practical  effect  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Conference.  The  address  closes  with 
an  endorsement  of  the  synod  proposed  by  the  Berlin  Asso- 
ciation in  which  rabbis  and  laymen  are  to  deliberate  to- 
gether to  the  end  that  Judaism  may  become  again  a  living, 
actual,  religious  force.  "Pure  Judaism,  it  is  true,  requires 
no  reform,  but  present-day  Judaism,  with  its  abuses  accu- 
mulated during  centuries,  requires  a  thoroughgoing  re- 
form." 

The  adherents  of  the  society  numbered  one  hundred  and 
fifty ; 2  at  a  meeting  held  April  5,  it  was  resolved  to  send 
representatives  to  the  Assembly  of  Deputies,  to  be  held  in 
Berlin  on  April  14-16. 3  Sunday  services  were  advocated 
and  the  immediate  carrying  into  effect  of  the  reforms  sug 
gested  by  the  rabbinical  Conferences. 

During  the  course  of  the  next  three  months  five  anony- 

1  Treuer  Bericnt  uber  die  letzten  Ereignisse  in  der  hiesigen  ju- 
dischen     Gemeinde     (anonymous,    but    from    Geiger's    entourage). 
Breslau,  1846.     Geiger,  Nachgelassene  Schriften,  V,  117. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  X,  250. 

'Ibid.,  X,  235-237;  supra,  340,  note. 


374  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

mous  pamphlets  appeared  attacking  Geiger.  These  were 
published  together  in  June  under  the  heading  "Five 
Epistles  of  the  Great  Majority  of  the  Breslau  Israelitish 
Congregation  to  Dr.  Geiger  and  to  themselves. ' ' 1 

The  writer  of  these  epistles  was  soon  known  to  be 
Freund.  It  was  pure  presumption  on  his  part  to  claim  to 
be  the  mouthpiece  of  the  majority  of  the  congregation,  and 
the  directory  promptly  repudiated  this  claim. 

The  first  epistle  was  a  bitter  arraignment  of  the  Berlin 
Reform  Association,  followed  by  a  personal  attack  on 
Geiger.  The  epistle  was  of  the  following  tenor: 

"After  attentive  and  careful  examination  of  the  char- 
acter and  views  of  the  Berlin  Reform  Association  the  Bres- 
lau congregation  in  all  sincerity  and  with  full  heart  must 
declare  this  reform  movement  pernicious  and  condemnable, 
for  the  reason  that  of  all  religious  movements  whereof  his- 
tory tells,  none  has  appeared  in  so  perplexing  and  mislead- 
ing a  guise  as  this  latest  reform  in  Judaism.  ...  In  all 
the  declarations  and  manifestoes  of  the  Reform  Association 
no  definite  nor  clear  statement  can  be  found  of  what  its 
members  believe  or  do  not  believe;  everywhere  indefinite 
generalization  about  needs  of  the  age,  prayers,  positive  be- 
lief, spirit  of  revelation,  and  similar  religious  catch- words 
which  every  one  can  understand  and  interpret  at  will. 

' '  If  the  complete  lack  of  definiteness  and  clearness  in  the 
manifestoes  of  the  Reform  Associations  were  the  result  of 
a  confused  religious  conviction,  no  justifiable  objection 
could  be  urged  thereagainst.  But  is  not  that  lack  of  defi- 
niteness rather  a  carefully  considered  and  skillfully 
wrought-out  plan  to  compass  a  double  purpose:  first,  to 
gather  under  the  broadly  extending  roof  a  very  large  num- 
ber of  participants  with  whose  co-operation  it  is  hoped  to 
reach  the  desired  goal  the  more  surely,  and  secondly,  not  to 
alienate  immediately  the  direct  co-operation  and  sympathy 

1  Funf  Sendschreiben  der  grossen  Mehrzahl  der  Breslauer  israelit- 
ischen  Gemeinde  an  Herrn  Dr.  Geiger  und  an  sicn  selbst. 


THE  BRESLAU  "FRIENDS  OF  REFORM »  375 

of  the  rabbis  by  a  definite  and  open  declaration  of  their 
true  religious  conviction,  for  the  Berlin  reformers  believe  it 
indispensable  to  secure  the  participation  of  the  rabbis  or 
the  spiritual  authorities  if  they  would  gain  the  mass  of  the 
people  and  if  they  would  indeed  reach  the  desired  aim? 

' '  The  agitators  and  leaders  of  the  Jewish  Reform  Associa- 
tion consider  as  the  true  and  real  purpose  of  their  organ- 
ization the  reconciliation  of  Jewish  doctrine  with  life,  so 
that  the  religion  may  put  the  seal  of  its  approval  upon  the 
life  which  has  been  or  is  being  divorced  from  the  cere- 
monial law.  If  the  leaders  of  those  reform  associations 
were  to  declare  this  their  object  in  definite  unequivocal 
terms,  the  rabbis  would  hesitate  indeed  to  appear  as 
sympathizers  with  and  leaders  of  such  a  program.'*  The 
remainder  of  the  document  is  a  personal  attack  on  Geiger. 

At  the  same  time  (April,  1846),  but  independently  of 
this  ' '  Epistle, ' '  Geiger  issued  a  pamphlet ' '  Nine  Years  Ago 
and  To-day:  A  Word  from  that  Time  for  the  Better 
Understanding  of  the  Present. ' ' x  In  this  he  reprinted  his 
article  in  the  opening  volume  of  the  Judische  Zeitschrift 
fur  Wissenschaftliche  Theologie  on  the  need  of  a  rabbinical 
Conference  and  portions  of  another  article  on  Jews  and 
Judaism,  and  added:  "What  my  heart  longed  for  nine 
years  ago  was  no  will-o'-the-wisp  of  the  fantasy.  Time 
has  verified  it;  it  stands  clearly  accomplished  before  us. 
The  sincere  rabbis  of  Germany  meet  in  Conference  in  order 
to  deliberate  upon  what  is  necessary  for  sick  Judaism,  and 
on  the  other  hand  practical  men  form  associations  in  order 
to  satisfy  these  religious  needs  and  to  seek  appropriate 
expression  for  their  innermost  convictions.  The  day  of 
struggle  is  not  yet  over,  but  the  issue  is  no  longer  lost  in 
the  solitary  desert;  the  echo  resounds. 

"I  greet,  therefore,  joyously  and  openly  the  beautiful 
productions  of  our  age,  the  Conferences  of  German  rabbis, 

1  For  neun  Jdhren  und  Heute.  Ein  Wort  aus  jener  Zeit  zur  Ver- 
stdndigung  fur  die  Gegenwart. 


376  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

and  the  Associations  for  Reform;  .  .  .  May  they  live  and 
work  together  in  peace !  Even  though  they  be  antagonized 
at  the  start,  they  will  maintain  themselves  as  the  only 
means  for  the  restoration  of  a  pure  and  living  Judaism. ' ' 

Geiger  did  not  answer  Freund  's  *  *  Epistle. ' ' *  But  a  few 
days  later  a  second  anonymous  pamphlet  appeared  entitled 
"The  Israelitish  Congregation  of  Breslau  in  its  Disinte- 
gration :  A  Voice  from  the  Congregation. ' ' 2  The  writer 
accused  Geiger  of  vacillation  and  incapability  of  self- 
sacrificing  devotion  in  the  cause  of  reform.  He  claimed 
that  those  who  desire  reforms  cannot  place  implicit  con- 
fidence in  Geiger,  but  must  search  and  examine  for  them- 
selves. They  would  then  find  that  some  things  that  Geiger 
commends  are  condemnable;  others  that  he  opposes  are 
commendable.  Of  all  things,  the  desire  to  imitate  must 
be  shunned.  Among  such  things  is  the  worship  with  un- 
covered head,  instituted  by  the  Berlin  Reform  Association, 
and  strongly  recommended  by  Geiger.  Reform  in  Juda- 
ism must  come  from  within  Judaism  and  not  be  mere 
imitation.  Judaism  often  conceals  within  an  unsightly 
shell  a  living  kernel,  which  the  self-appointed  reformers 
throw  away  with  the  shell.  Not  every  step  is  progress, 
nor  .every  change  improvement  (nicht  jeder  Schritt  ist 
Fortschritt,  nicht  jede  Verdnderung  eine  Verbesserung). 
In  conclusion,  the  writer  called  on  Geiger  to  resign  as  rabbi 
of  the  congregation  and  accept  the  leadership  of  the  Berlin 
Reform  Association  which  had  been  tendered  him.  Here- 
upon Geiger  inserted  a  communication  in  the  local  Breslau 
press  in  which  he  definitely  declined  the  call  of  the  Berlin 
Reform  Association  and  refuted  the  statements  of  the 
pamphlet. 

*An  anonymous  answer  was  published  under  the  title,  "Addresse 
der  Grossen  Mehrzahl  der  Mitglieder  der  Breslauer  israelitischen 
Gemeinde  an  Herrn  Dr.  Wilhelm  Freund. "  Breslau,  1846. 

2  Die  Breslauer  Israeliten  Gemeinde  in  ihrem  Zerfalle  und  Verfalle. 
Eine  Stimme  aus  der  Gemeinde. 


THE  BKESLAU  "FKIENDS  OF  KEFORM"  377 

Three  other  anonymous  pamphlets  of  a  similar  tenor  fol- 
lowed. The  result  of  these  writings  of  Freund  was  that 
the  reformers  became  disheartened,  and,  as  was  the  case  in 
1845,  their  activity  ceased  this  time  also  with  the  publica- 
tion of  a  high-sounding  manifesto— words,  words,  words; 
no  acts. 

Geiger  refused  the  call  of  the  Berlin  Reform  Congrega- 
tion on  the  ground  that  he  could  not  become  the  rabbi  of  a 
portion  of  the  community ;  he  preferred  to  remain  in  Bres- 
lau  as  rabbi  of  the  whole  Jewish  community  with  all  its 
inner  contentions  rather  than  stand  at  the  head  of  a 
separatistic  congregation,  even  though  this  insured  peace 
and  congeniality. *  Jewish  affairs  in  Breslau  continued 
in  an  agitated  state;  although  the  ultra-radical  party  did 
not  succeed  in  this  city  as  they  did  in  Berlin  in  forming  a 
congregation,  and  their  public  activity  ceased  with  the 
incident  narrated  above,  still  agitation  continued  to  be 
fostered  within  the  community  by  the  party  occupying  the 
other  extreme— the  Tiktin  sympathizers.  Geiger,  it  is  true, 
had  issued  as  victor  from  his  combat  with  S.  A.  Tiktin,  yet 
the  orthodox  element  under  the  leadership  of  Tiktin 's  son 
was  so  irreconcilable  that  after  several  years  of  continuous 
conflict  due  primarily  to  the  fact  that  Geiger  had  been 
named  the  chief  rabbi  of  the  community,  it  was  decided  in 
1849  that  the  only  method  of  insuring  peace  was  to  divide 
the  Jewish  community  into  two  congregations — the  one, 
under  Geiger 's  leadership,  to  be  known  as  the  Cultus- 
gemeinde;  the  other,  under  Tiktin 's  headship  who  was  to 
be  called  by  the  title  Schlesischer  Landrabbiner.  This 
arrangement  continued  till  1856,  when  the  two  congrega- 
tions were  merged  with  the  understanding  that  the  two 
rabbis  were  to  be  on  an  equal  footing,  Tiktin  to  have  the 
same  title  as  Geiger  as  rabbi  of  the  community.  In  1854 

1  Fifteen  years  later,  upon  Holdheim  's  death,  he  again  refused  to 
accept  the  call  of  the  Berlin  Eeform  Congregation  to  become  its  rabbi 
for  the  same  reason. 


378  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  congregation  adopted  as  its  official  ritual  the  Prayer- 
Book  prepared  by  Geiger  along  the  lines  of  a  plan  which  he 
had  formulated  in  1849. *  The  agitation  for  thorough- 
going reforms  did  not  then  bear  fruit  in  Breslau  as  it  had 
in  Berlin ;  no  separate  reform  congregation  was  organized ; 
moderate  reforms  were  introduced  into  the  service  of  the 
main  congregation,  which  like  the  congregations  throughout 
Germany  showed  the  effects  of  the  reform  spirit,  but  was 
not  able  to  carry  out  fully  the  theories  of  reform.  Private- 
ly hundreds  thought  and  lived  in  accordance  with  the 
program  of  the  Breslau  reform  society  of  1846;  publicly 
and  officially  Judaism  in  Breslau  as  elsewhere,  in  Geiger 's 
congregation  as  in  others,  was  ultra-conservative,  not  ven- 
turing to  give  practical  evidence  of  the  acceptance  of  even 
such  moderate  expressions  of  the  modern  spirit  as  the  full 
equality  of  woman  with  man  by  the  removal  of  the  woman 's 
gallery  from  the  synagogue  or  the  abolition  of  the  second 
day  of  the  holidays,  to  say  nothing  of  more  radical  meas- 
ures. Geiger  continued  in  office  in  Breslau  till  1863,  when 
he  was  succeeded  by  M.  Joel,  famous  for  his  studies  in  Jew- 
ish philosophy,  who  was  far  from  proceeding  even  to  the 
theoretical  lengths  that  Geiger  did.  The  religious  atmos- 
phere of  this  community  was  never  again  disturbed  by 
storms  of  such  violence  as  passed  over  it  in  the  fifth  decade. 
The  days  of  laiser  aller  succeeded  the  period  of  storm. 

1  Grundzilge  und  Plan  zu  einen  neuen  Gebeibuclie. 


CHAPTER  X 
REFOBM  IN  HUNGARY 

QUITE  as  intense,  if  not  as  widespread  as  in  Germany, 
was  the  agitation  for  religious  reform  among  Hungarian 
Jews  in  the  fifth  decade.  The  history  of  the  beginnings 
of  the  movement  in  Germany  as  portrayed  in  the  opening 
chapter  of  this  work  repeated  itself  in  the  Magyar  realm 
fifty  years  later.  The  civil,  educational  and  religious 
emancipation  ran  along  parallel  lines.  The  Diet  of  1839- 
40  had  passed  some  laws  of  an  emancipatory  character 
touching  the  position  of  the  Jews ; *  that  of  1843-44  evaded 
enacting  any  legislation.  The  party  in  power  had  given  as 
a  reason  for  this  neglect  the  fact  that  the  Jews  had  not 
Magyarized  themselves  sufficiently  and  therefore  were  not 
worthy  of  full  emancipation.  This  statement  was  all  that 
was  needed  for  the  Jews  to  redouble  the  efforts  that  they 
had  put  forth  in  this  direction  during  the  three  years  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  adjournment  of  the  first  parliament 
which  had  shown  itself  favorable  to  their  emancipation. 
In  synagogue,  school  and  home  the  process  of  Magyariza- 
tion  became  a  matter  of  serious  occupation.  Schools  were 
established  in  which  instruction  was  given  in  the  language 
of  the  country.  Looking  toward  this  end,  Moritz  Bloch 
(known  later  as  Prof.  Ballagi)  translated  the  Pentateuch 
and  the  Book  of  Joshua,2  and  Salomon  Rosenthal  and 
Marcus  Bauer  other  Biblical  Books  and  the  Prayer-Book 
into  Hungarian;  Salomon  Neumann  wrote  Hebrew-Hun- 

*I.  Einhorn,  Die  Revolution  und  die  Juden  in  TJngarn,  44.    Leip- 
zig, 1851. 
'A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1879,  653. 

379 


380  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  J  CJDAISM 

garian  school  books  in  order  to  facilitate  the  task  of  teach- 
ers who  were  aiding  in  converting  the  cheder  into  a  modern 
school. *  As  the  orthodox  rabbis  had  pronounced  the  ban 
upon  Hartwig  Wessely  in  1789  for  having  urged  Jewish 
parents  to  give  their  children  a  modern  German  education, 
so  now  the  Hungarian  orthodox  rabbis  opposed  the  insti- 
tution of  schools  for  modern  learning.  They  threatened 
to  drive  away  any  bachur  (Jewish  rabbinical  student) 
who  touched  a  German  book ; 2  from  their  standpoint  they 
were  quite  right  because  it  had  become  evident  that  ortho- 
doxy was  doomed  as  soon  as  the  Jew  acquired  a  modern 
education.  A  similar  instinct  of  self-preservation  induced 
the  orthodox  rabbis  of  Pressburg  to  prevail  upon  the  Jew- 
ish community  of  that  city  to  issue  a  petition  calling  upon 
the  Jews  of  Hungary  to  refuse  the  gift  of  emancipation  if 
offered  to  them;  they  characterized  the  desire  of  the  Jews 
for  civil  emancipation  as  sinful  and  as  inconsistent  with 
Israel's  hopes  for  the  future. 3  Here,  again,  they  were 
consistent  from  their  standpoint.  In  their  view  the  Jews 
were  a  nation,  exiled  from  their  land ;  the  countries  of  their 
sojourn  were  simply  temporary  dwelling-places ;  they  were 
living  under  their  own  legislation.  To  become  merged  in 
the  body  politic  of  the  land  meant  the  surrender  of  all  their 
hopes  for  the  future  restoration  of  Israel  to  the  land  of 
Palestine.  They  made  no  distinction  between  the  political 
and  religious  elements  in  Judaism ;  they  were  in  the  land, 
but  not  of  it;  among  the  people,  but  not  of  them— nor  did 
they  wish  to  be.  In  no  country,  possibly,  was  the  opposi- 
tion to  reforms  of  any  kind  more  bitter  and  constant  than 
in  Hungary,  and  nowhere  did  the  rabbis  of  the  old  school 
present  more  solid  ranks  to  the  onslaughts  of  the  modern 
spirit.  4  A  few  rabbis,  however,  helped  along  the  process 

1  Einhorn,  Die  Revolution  und  die  Juden  in  Ungarn,  48. 

9  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  VHI  (1844),  583. 

*IUd.,  452.     Voice  of  Jacob,  III,  222. 

*Many,  if  not  the  majority,  of  the  116  signers  of  the  famous  pro- 
test against  the  Brunswick  Eabbinical  Conference  were  Hungarian 
rabbis,  supra,  226. 


EEFOEM  IN  HUNGARY  381 

of  Magyarization  by  preaching  in  the  vernacular,  notably 
Leopold  Low  in  Kanischa,  Jacob  Steinhardt  (Streinka)  in 
Arad, 1  Moritz  Zipser  in  Stuhlweissenburg,  Edward  Ehrlich 
in  Lengyeltoth,  Daniel  Pillitz  in  Szegedin  and  Leopold 
Kosenstein  in  Grosswardein. 2  Feeling  ran  very  high,  and 
the  orthodox  rabbis  stormed  with  fanatical  rage  against  the 
"innovators."  To  what  extremes  men  permitted  them- 
selves to  be  carried  appears  from  the  words  spoken  by 
Phineas  Hurwitz,  rabbi  in  Papa,  at  the  grave  of  his  son  in 
1844;  he  said  that  he  felt  himself  responsible  for  the  son's 
early  death  because  he  had  not  opposed  the  innovators  with 
sufficient  zeal  and  holy  wrath. 3 

The  majority  party  of  the  parliament  of  1843-4,  which 
had  justified  its  withholding  of  full  emancipation  from  the 
Jews  because  they  had  not  assimilated  themselves  sufficiently 
to  the  Hungarian  people  in  language  and  education,  had 
also  in  an  address  to  the  king  touched  this  subject.  In  this 
address  they  suggested  that  if  the  Jews  abolish  "forms, 
antiquated  customs  and  ceremonies  that  do  not  affect  the 
essence  of  their  religion,"  the  path  to  emancipation  would 
be  greatly  smoothed  Ignatz  Einhorn,4  who  played  a 
prominent  part  in  the  revolution  of  1848  and  in  the  Jewish 

1  This  was  the  one  community  in  Hungary  which  was  permeated 
with  the  reform  spirit,  due  to  the  fact  that  it  had  been  ministered 
to  for  so  many  years  by  Aaron  Chorin,  one  of  the  most  noted  of  the 
early  reformers.     Steinhardt  was  Chorin 's  successor. 

2  Einhorn,  Die  Revolution  und  die  Juden  in  Ungarn,  48. 
SA.  Z.  d.  J.,  VIII  (1844),  468. 

4  Later  he  took  the  name  of  Eduard  Horn,  and  attained  great  promi- 
nence as  a  publicist;  he  was  exiled  from  his  native  land  for  his  share 
in  the  revolution  of  1848,  but  was  permitted  to  return  in  1867.  He 
had  a  distinguished  parliamentary  career;  in  1873  he  was  elected 
Secretary  of  State  to  the  Ministry  of  Commerce.  During  the  incum- 
bency of  that  office  he  died,  Nov.  3,  1875,  at  the  age  of  fifty.  His 
early  religious  activity  was  forcibly  recalled  when,  as  a  member  of 
the  Hungarian  national  parliament,  he  introduced  a  bill  to  transfer 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  from  Saturday  to  Sunday.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXVI 
(1872),  512. 


382  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

reform  movement,  called  these  words  ''hollow  phrases  in- 
tended to  excuse  the  indefensible  refusal  to  emancipate  the 
Jews. ' ' 1  However,  although  there  is  no  likelihood  that 
religious  reform  was  entered  upon  with  the  thought  to  se- 
cure civil  emancipation  thereby,  still  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  movement  for  civil  emancipation  gave  an  impetus 
to  the  institution  of  religious  reforms.  These  things  have 
proceeded  pari  passu  everywhere  among  Jews.  During 
these  years  there  were  many  evidences  of  the  working  of  the 
reform  spirit  in  Hungary.  Thus  in  1845,  when  the  new 
synagogue  in  Papa  was  nearing  completion,  some  Jews  of 
that  city  addressed  five  questions  to  a  number  of  rabbis 
within  and  without 'Hungary;  twenty-one  rabbis  answered. 
Their  answers  were  published  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  '  *  Per- 
missibility and  Urgency  of  Synagogal  Reforms;  Responses 
of  Prominent  Native  and  Foreign  Rabbis. ' ' 2  The  ques- 
tions were: 

1.  Is  it  permitted  to  place  the  almemor  next  to  the  ark 
and  to  introduce  the  prayers  with  choral  accompaniment 
as  is  the  custom  at  present  in  some  large  congregations? 

2.  Is  not  the  placing  of  the  marriage  canopy  and  the 
performance  of  the  marriage  ceremony  within  the  syna- 
gogue in  front  of  the  ark  contrary  to  the  principles  of  our 
faith? 

3.  May  the  officers  of  congregations  sit  with  uncovered 
heads  at  their  public  deliberations? 

4.  Are  the  commands  to  dispense  with  leather  shoes, 
and  to  wear  the  shroud  on  the  Day  of  Atonement  so  im- 
portant that  if  disobeyed  this  would  imply  a  desecration 
of  the  holiday  and  an  action  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
day? 

5.  Is  the  spirit  which  actuates  these  and  similar  re- 
forms conducive  to  the  preservation  and  uplifting  of  Juda- 
ism? 

1  Die  Revolution  und  die  Juden  in  Ungarn,  55. 

2  ZuldssigTceit  und  DringliMeit  der  Synagogenreformen  'begutachtet 
von  vorzilglichen  in  und  ausl'dndischen  Rab'binen.    Vienna,  1845. 


EEFOEM  IN  HUNGARY  383 

All  the  rabbis,  including  men  of  such  differing  views  as 
Geiger,  Frankel,  Stein,  Philippson,  and  Schwab  of  Pesth, 
answered  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fifth  questions  unan- 
imously in  the  affirmative;  on  the  fourth  opinions  were 
divided.  The  reforms  indicated  by  these  questions  appear 
insignificant,  it  is  true;  but  still  they  were  reforms,  and 
even  the  minimum  of  reform  meant  a  recognition  that  a 
new  order  of  things  had  come  to  pass.  The  Papa  congre- 
gation became  very  prominent  during  these  years  because 
of  the  activity  of  Leopold  Low,  who  was  a  man  of  unusual 
attainments  and  for  many  years  was  the  foremost  rabbi  of 
Hungary.  He  gave  himself  to  the  emancipation  movement 
heart  and  soul ;  after  the  fall  of  the  short-lived  Hungarian 
republic  he  was  imprisoned  for  a  brief  period.  Among  his 
own  people  he  was  an  uplifting  influence.  In  Kanischa, 
where  he  was  rabbi  from  1841  to  1846,  he  preached  in  the 
vernacular ;  in  Papa  his  reform  tendencies  brought  him  into 
conflict  with  the  fanatics  of  the  orthodox  party  who  de- 
nounced him  to  the  government.  His  enemies  did  not 
succeed  in  displacing  him.  He  organized  a  Young  People's 
Reading  Union  in  Papa  whose  purpose  it  was  to  spread  the 
use  of  the  national  language,  and  to  arouse  interest  in  ques- 
tions of  the  day;  in  1847  he  established  a  quarterly,  A 
Magyar  Zsinagoga  (The  Hungarian  Synagogue),  whose 
aim  he  defined  to  be  the  spread  of  pure  religiosity,  lofty 
morals,  and  zealous  patriotism. 

In  1846  a  service  with  choir  and  sermon  was  instituted  in 
Buda  (Of en)  under  the  auspices  of  "The  Society  for  the 
Beautifying  of  the  Israelitish  Traditional  Divine  Service" 
(mil  niKfin  man).  Philip  Schuler  was  the  directing  spirit, 
and  the  movement  was  encouraged  by  the  rabbi  of  Pesth, 
L.  Schwab. *  Schwab  favored  aestheticization  of  the  serv- 
ice by  such  means  as  music  and  sermon  in  the  vernacular, 
but  he  was  not  a  reformer  in  the  sense  that  the  German 
rabbis  were  who  placed  a  new  interpretation  upon  the  relig- 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI,  1847,  42. 


384  THE  KEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ion  in  its  ceremonial  and  its  spiritual  aspects.  This  ap- 
peared later  in  Schwab's  hostile  attitude  to  the  Reform 
Society  of  Pesth,  which  was  founded  on  German  models. 
He  believed  in  modern  culture  and  education  for  the  Jew, 
but  he  clung  to  the  traditional  standpoint,  and  further  than 
countenancing  efforts  to  bring  decorum  into  the  public 
service  he  would  not  go. 

It  was  in  Pesth,  the  Hungarian  capital,  that  the  reform 
party  made  its  greatest  show  of  strength  and  put  forth  its 
chief  efforts.  Here,  as  in  the  large  cities  of  Germany,  the 
cultural  movements  were  particularly  strong  and  drew 
hundreds  of  Jews  within  the  circle  of  their  influence.  Par- 
ticipation in  these  cultural  movements  was  always  the  fore- 
runner of  religious  reform.  There  had  been  a  so-called 
Cultustempel  in  Pesth  since  1826,  where  sermons  were  de- 
livered and  a  choir  sang,  but  that  continued  to  use  the  tra- 
ditional ritual.  In  the  fall  of  1847  J.  Bach,  the  preacher, 
advocated  the  introduction  of  German  prayers  and  the 
organ.  A  society  was  formed  to  carry  these  suggestions  in- 
to effect. 1  It  was  not,  however,  until  after  the  events  of 
the  fateful  revolutionary  month— March,  1848— that  the 
movement  came  to  a  head.  We  note  here  a  remarkable 
difference  between  the  fortunes  of  the  progressive  religious 
movement  in  Germany  and  Hungary.  In  Germany  the 
political  excitement  attendant  upon  the  revolutions  of  1848 
absorbed  attention  to  such  a  degree  that  interest  in  the 
progressive  religious  movement,  which  had  aroused  great 
enthusiasm  in  the  pre-revolutionary  years,  waned,  and  a 
feeling  of  apathy,  in  striking  contrast  with  this  former 
enthusiasm,  ensued.  In  Hungary,  notably  in  Pesth,  on 
the  other  hand,  the. free  religious  movement  among  Jews 
breathed  in  inspiration  from  the  circumambient  atmos- 
phere of  liberty  that  enveloped  all.  Ignatz  Einhorn,  a 
young  man  twenty-three  years  of  age,  who  had  already 
directed  attention  to  himself  by  his  publication,  ' '  The  Jew- 

M.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI  (1847),  694. 


EEFOEM  IN  HUNGARY  385 

ish  Question  in  Hungary, ' ' *  called  upon  the  Jewish  stu- 
dent youth  in  March,  1848,  to  co-operate  in  the  effort  to 
introduce  religious  reforms.  These  young  men  who  suc- 
ceeded soon  in  enlisting  the  sympathy  and  active  aid  of 
some  men  of  mark  in  the  Jewish  community,  addressed 
the  directory  of  the  congregation  on  the  subject.  They 
wished  to  avoid  a  split  in  the  community  by  forming  a 
separate  reform  congregation,  and  desired  if  possible  to 
induce  the  directory  of  the  main  congregation  to  make  pro- 
vision by  the  institution  of  a  reform  service  under  their 
auspices  for  such  as  were  no  longer  edified  by  the  tradi- 
tional mode  of  service.  This  seemed  possible  of  ready  ful- 
fillment, because  for  years  the  congregation  had  supported 
two  synagogues,  in  the  one  of  which  the  service  had  been 
conducted  along  traditional  lines,  while  in  the  other  (the 
Cultustempel)  a  few  external  reforms  had  been  introduced. 
The  principle  had  thus  been  granted  that  the  various  re- 
ligious needs  of  different  sections  of  the  community  should 
be  provided  for,  and  therefore  they  would  be  merely  fol- 
lowing the  path  already  marked  out  if  they  were  to  insti- 
tute a  reform  service  for  such  as  found  no  religious  satis- 
faction in  either  of  the  two  existing  synagogues. 

The  directory  expressed  its  agreement  with  this  presenta- 
tion of  the  case,  and  appointed  a  commission  of  ten  to  pre- 
pare a  definite  plan  of  procedure.  An  insurmountable 
obstacle  was  met  in  the  opposition  of  the  rabbi,  L.  Schwab, 
to  the  introduction  of  any  reforms  other  than  external,  even 
in  a  separate  congregation  to  be  formed  under  the  auspices 
of  the  main  congregation.2 

While  these  negotiations,  which  culminated  in  failure, 
were  proceeding,  the  reformers  moved  rapidly  towards  a 

1  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Ungarn.     Ofen,  1847. 

2  This  opinion  of  Rabbi  Schwab  elicited  answers  from  Holdheim, 
Das  Gutachten  des  Pesther  Eabbinats  uber  die  Reformgenossenschaft 
daselbst   and   from    Ignatz   Einhorn,    Einige    ~Bemerkungen   uber  das 
Gutachten  des  Herrn  L.  Schwab  Eabbiner  der  israelitischen  Gemeinde 
zu  Pest.     Pesth,  1848. 

25 


386      THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

practical  realization  of  their  program.  On  April  15,  1848, 
Ignatz  Einhorn  began  the  publication  of  a  newspaper,  Der 
Ungarische  Israelit.  In  an  early  number  of  this  paper  an 
address  to  the  Jews  of  Hungary  appeared  signed  "The 
Student  Youth  of  the  Jewish  Faith."  The  spirit  that 
animated  these  young  men  who  were  led  by  Einhorn  can 
be  best  understood  by  a  brief  extract  from  that  address: 
' '  The  time  long  since  prophesied  has  come  at  last ;  a  bene- 
ficent thunderstorm  has  cleared  the  political  atmosphere; 
millenium-old  systems  are  destroyed  mercilessly  and  ruth- 
lessly ;  age  no  longer  sanctifies  abuses ;  whatever  mocks  the 
spirit  of  our  time,  is  in  its  turn  now  scorned  and  despised ; 
the  eternal  truths  appear  pure  and  unencumbered  on  the 
horizon  of  our  achieved  freedom ;  we  have  taken  the  giant 
leap  from  pupilage  to  full  and  responsible  manhood  in  the 
course  of  a  few  weeks,  and  shall  only  the  golden  content  of 
our  religion  continue  encrusted  with  moldering  mediaeval 
ceremonies?  Is  this  possible  at  a  time  when  everything 
blossoms  and  decks  itself  with  the  fresh  apparel  of  the  new 
age;  is  our  faith  alone  to  declare  itself  absolutely  incom- 
patible with  the  new  age  ?  No !  no !  say  we  ! "  Events 
moved  rapidly.  A  Keform  Society  was  formed  in  Pesth; 
it  was  hoped  that  similar  reform  societies  would  be  organ- 
ized throughout  Hungary  in  response  to  appeals  sent 
broadcast.  However,  the  hold  of  traditionalism  was  too 
strong,  and  favorable  responses  were  received  only  from 
Arad,  Lugos, 1  Fiinfkirchen,  Grosswardein,  and  Nagy- 
Becskerek.  The  Pesth  reformers,  however,  were  not  dis- 
couraged, despite  the  meagreness  of  the  response ;  they 
called  a  meeting  of  all  interested  in  the  reform  cause  for 

1  Such  reforms  as  sermon  in  the  vernacular,  confirmation,  choir 
with  organ,  had  been  introduced  in  Lugos.  See  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XI 
(1847),  347.  Moses  Bruck,  the  preacher  of  this  congregation,  \\rote 
several  books  on  the  ceremonial  law.  He  and  his  whole  congrega- 
tion had  to  flee  because  of  the  atrocities  of  the  Wallachians  after 
the  fall  of  the  Hungarian  Kepublic;  he  died  at  Szegedin  in  1849  of 
the  cholera. 


REFORM  IN  HUNGARY  387 

July  8,  1848,  when  "The  Central  Reform  Society  of 
Hungarian  Israelites ' '  was  formed.  But  the  activity  of  the 
new  movement  was  practically  limited  to  Pesth,  where  the 
reformers  displayed  great  energy  and  activity.  Since  the 
directorate  of  the  main  congregation  wavered  in  its  atti- 
tude and  gave  no  satisfaction  on  the  point  of  instituting  a 
reform  service,  as  requested  by  the  reformers,  these  latter 
determined  to  form  themselves  into  a  separate  organization, 
and  the  Pesth  Reform  Congregation  was  formally  consti- 
tuted on  August  10th.  Ignatz  Einhorn  was  elected  rabbi 
of  the  congregation,  and  it  was  determined  to  acquire  a 
building  wherein  to  hold  services  as  soon  as  possible;  by 
the  end  of  September  the  building  was  ready  for  occu- 
pancy, and  the  first  reform  service  modeled  upon  the  service 
of  the  Berlin  Reform  Congregation  was  held  on  New  Year 's 
Day  (Sept.  28,  1848).  Einhorn  preached  the  sermon,  in 
which  he  dwelt  upon  the  principles  that  underlay  the  reform 
movement.  The  congregation  adopted  a  radical  program 
advocating  such  extreme  reforms  as  the  transfer  of  the 
Sabbath  to  Sunday,  the  abrogation  of  circumcision  and 
the  dietary  laws ;  the  services  were  held  on  Sunday,  the  men 
worshiped  with  uncovered  heads,  and  the  prayers  were  in 
*he  vernacular.  Holdheim  was  the  authority  to  whom 
these  Hungarian  radicals  looked  for  guidance,  and  the  Pesth 
congregation  was  the  only  one  in  Europe  outside  of  his  own 
Berlin  congregation  which  carried  into  practice  the  ultra- 
teachings  of  this  arch-radical  among  the  reform  leaders. 

Only  in  Pesth  did  the  Hungarian  reformers  succeed  in 
organizing  a  congregation,  although  there  were  individuals 
in  other  cities  who  sympathized  fully  with  the  views  of  the 
Pesth  radicals  and  who  like  these  drew  their  inspiration 
from  the  writings  of  Holdheim.  An  interesting  document 
that  throws  into  vivid  relief  the  position  of  this  extreme 
left  wing  of  Hungarian  Jewry  has  been  preserved  in  the 
form  of  a  communication  addressed  to  Holdheim  on  April 
23,  1848,  by  a  group  of  Jewish  radicals  of  Arad,  where, 


388  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

through  the  influence  of  Aaron  Chorin,  reform  ideas  had 
found  sympathetic  lodgment  in  the  congregation  from  very 
early  days.  In  this  communication  Holdheim  was  re- 
quested to  render  an  opinion  as  to  whether  the  signatories 
to  the  document  and  others  who  thought  as  they  did  could 
continue  as  Jews  if,  taking  the  Ten  Commandments  as  the 
basis  of  their  faith,  they  would  give  outer  expression  to  this 
through  the  following  measures:  1.  The  transfer  of  the 
Sabbath  to  the  Sunday.  2.  The  abolition  of  the  dietary 
laws.  3.  The  abolition  of  the  second  days  of  the  holidays. 
4.  A  short  service  in  a  living  language  together  with  the 
abrogation  of  all  marks  of  separation  and  the  covering  of 
the  head.  5.  The  declaration  that  circumcision  is  not  ab- 
solutely required  of  Israelites;  and  finally,  the  definite 
declaration  that  only  the  ten  commandments  are  binding 
as  the  revelation  of  God  to  Moses;  therefore  the  Talmud 
and  old  religious  observances,  both  such  as  are  contained 
in  the  Bible  and  such  as  were  introduced  in  earlier  days, 
fall  away. 1 

These  questions  go  to  the  very  heart  of  Jewish  teaching ; 
they  give  evidence,  too,  of  the  fact  that  these  radicals  did 
not  comprehend  the  basic  principles  of  the  reform  move- 
ment. By  repudiating  the  whole  Jewish  tradition,  they 
cut  themselves  loose  from  the  house  of  Israel ;  by  accepting 
only  the  Ten  Commandments  and  not  the  authority  of  the 
Mosaic  code,  they  out-Karaited  the  Karaites.  All  the 
great  reformers  insisted  upon  the  validity  of  the  principle 
of  tradition,  however  many  special  traditions  they  may 
have  repudiated ;  otherwise  they  would  have  cut  the  cord 
that  bound  them  to  the  century-long  religious  experience 
and  development  of  Israel.  They  taught  that  reform  was 
interpretation  and  application  of  the  principle  of  tradition 
in  the  light  of  the  changed  conditions  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  just  as  the  Shulchan  Aruk  was  such  an  interpre- 
tation and  application  in  the  light  of  the  conditions  of 

1 1.  N.  J.,  1848,  164-5. 


REFORM  IN  HUNGARY  389 

former  centuries.  For  them  the  whole  history  of  Judaism 
was  eloquent  with  the  searching  after  God,  and  they  saw 
the  revelation  of  God,  not  only  in  the  Ten  Commandments, 
but  in  the  whole  long  unfolding  and  growth  of  the  spirit 
of  man  through  historical  time.  However  much  the  great 
leaders  may  have  differed  on  some  points,  in  this  they  were 
all  agreed,  even  Holdheim.  In  his  answer  to  the  Arad 
questionnaire  he  explained  this  and  other  points  so  clearly 
and  concisely  that  it  appears  necessary  to  set  down  here  his 
words:  "To  the  question  whether  the  observance  of  the 
ten  commandments  alone  is  sufficient  for  the  Israelitish 
confession,  I  answer: 

' l  (a)  The  definite  God-cognition  and  moral  content  of 
Judaism  as  they  are  expressed  briefly  and  sharply  in  the 
Ten  Commandments,  as  they  are  more  fully  explained  and 
developed  in  the  whole  Bible,  the  post-Biblical  writings, 
and  particularly  in  the  whole  history  of  Judaism,  together 
with  the  historical  mission  of  Judaism,  compose  the  exclu- 
sive, unchangeable  foundation  and  the  essential  and  only 
binding  principles  of  Judaism.  This  mission  means  the 
preservation  in  all  its  purity  of  this  God-cognition  and  this 
body  of  moral  doctrine,  which  is  based  on  justice  and  uni- 
versal brotherly  love,  and  the  promulgation  thereof  among 
men  by  the  moral  force  of  example ;  so  that,  in  accordance 
with  the  prophetical  Messianic  idea,  justice  and  brotherhood 
may  become  dominant  in  all  the  earth. 

"  (b)  Now  that  the  Jews  have  become  integral  elements 
of  other  peoples  and  states,  in  conjunction  with  whom  they 
are  determined  to  further  the  moral  aims  of  society,  all 
laws  and  institutions  of  Judaism  which  base  upon  the  elec- 
tion of  a  particular  Jewish  people— yes,  of  a  particular 
Jewish  state— and  hence  by  their  very  nature  implied  ex- 
clusiveness  and  particularism,  and  served  merely  to 
strengthen  the  nationalistic  sentiment,  as  was  the  case 
among  all  ancient  peoples,  have  lost  all  religious  signifi- 
cance and  obligation,  and  have  given  way  to  the  national 


390  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

laws  and  institutions  of  such  lands  and  peoples  to  which 
the  Jews  belong  by  birth  and  civic  relationship.  As  an  ex- 
ample of  such  a  political  law  of  the  Jewish  Palestinian 
state,  I  instance  the  prohibition  to  take  interest  from  the 
native  and  the  permission  to  take  such  interest  from  the 
foreigner  (Deut.  xxiii.  20-21). 

"  (c)  All  laws  which  deal  with  the  temple,  the  sacrificial, 
the  priestly  or  the  T/evitical  service,  in  which  category  also 
the  many  dietary  laws,  as  well  as  the  laws  of  clean  and 
unclean,  belong;  in  a  word,  all  laws  which  grew  out  of  the 
idea  of  a  particular  theocratical  sanctity  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple and  base  upon  the  conception  of  a  particular  union  be- 
tween God  and  Israel,  the  chosen  people  of  God,  and  closer 
than  that  with  other  peoples,  have  lost  altogether  their  re- 
ligious truth  and  significance  for  us  now  that  these  repre- 
sentations have  became  foreign  to  our  whole  mode  of 
thought  and  we  look  upon  God  as  the  one  and  only  Father, 
and  consider  and  love  all  men  as  his  children  and  our 
brethren. 

"  (d)  All  other  ceremonies  and  customs— whether  they 
are  contained  in  the  Bible  or  are  the  products  of  later  times 
—which  at  one  time  had  and  fulfilled  the  purpose  of  nour- 
ishing the  religio-moral  sentiment,  but  have  lost  all  such 
power  owing  to  the  complete  change  in  the  position  and 
culture  of  men  and  have  for  this  reason  sunk  into  mere 
external  forms,  can  and  may  not  be  performed  by  us  any 
longer  as  religious  practices.  We  must  rather  strive  ear- 
nestly for  inner  religiosity  and  not  outer  formalism,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  words  of  the  prophet  Hosea  (vi.  6)  'I  de- 
sire loving  kindness  and  not  sacrifice;'  we  must  use  only 
such  ceremonies  as  are  efficacious  in  working  as  a  religious 
influence  upon  men  of  the  present  day. 

"B.     The  special  questions,  notably: 

"1.  That  touching  the  transfer  of  Saturday  to  Sunday, 
I  answer  thus:  Since  we  cannot  assume  that  God  pro- 
nounced one  particular  day  holy  once  for  all,  and  since  we 


EEFOEM  IN  HUNGARY  391 

consider  the  Biblical  account  of  the  exclusive  sanctification 
of  a  special  day  merely  as  the  mythical  expression  for  the 
sanctification  of  man  on  a  special  day,  naturally  no  relig- 
ious reason  prevents  the  transfer  of  the  historical  Sabbath 
to  any  other  day  of  the  week,  notably  if  such  a  transfer  is 
urgently  demanded  by  the  conditions  of  civic  life,  yea, 
even  in  the  interest  of  the  preservation  of  the  Sabbath- 
institution  and  its  influence  on  the  religious  life  of  the 
congregation;  hence  in  the  interest  of  religion  itself. 

"2.  As  I  have  demonstrated  scientifically  elsewhere, 
the  dietary  laws  belong  to  the  Biblical  laws  of  cleanliness, 
which  have  long  since  lost  all  significance.  Inasmuch  as 
the  dietary  laws  were  given  to  the  Israelites  alone,  they 
are  part  and  parcel  of  the  conception  of  a  special  theocrat- 
ical  sanctity  of  the  Jewish  people  and  therefore  have  lost 
all  significance.  Whatever,  however,  may  have  once  been 
the  reason  for  the  dietary  laws,  this  much  is  certain,  that 
this  reason  no  longer  exists  for  us,  and  has  no  religious 
efficacy ;  every  irrational  practice,  every  belief  in  talismanic 
power  is  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  religion.  Therefore  the 
abrogation  of  the  dietary  laws  is  highly  desirable,  since,  in 
addition  to  being  a  disturbing  feature  in  the  civic  and  social 
life  of  the  Jews,  these  laws  are  particularly  prone  to  con- 
tinue the  differences  between  them  and  the  other  inhab- 
itants. 

' '  3.  The  abolition  of  the  second  days  of  the  holidays,  as 
well  as  the  abrogation  of  all  fast  days  except  TiB3  Dr,  has 
been  recommended  by  the  German  rabbinical  conference. 
To  my  mind  not  only  is  there  no  objection  to  such  abolition, 
but  it  is  highly  desirable  in  the  interests  of  the  religion. 

'  '4.  The  abbreviation  of  the  service,  the  excision  of  all 
prayers  unsuited  to  our  age  as,  e.  g.,  the  sacrificial  and 
Messianic  prayers  of  a  Jewish  national  character,  as  well 
as  the  use  of  the  vernacular  in  the  public  service,  have  also 
been  recommended  by  the  second  rabbinical  Conference. 
The  removal  of  all  disturbing  ceremonials  has  taken  place 


392  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

in  very  many  Jewish  congregations  in  Germany,  and  not 
even  from  the  orthodox  standpoint  can  any  objection  be 
raised  to  praying  with  uncovered  head. 

"5.  Circumcision  is  the  sign  of  the  covenant  concluded 
between  God  and  Abraham,  and  eo  ipso  his  descendants 
(from  which,  however,  the  older  lines  of  Ishmael  and  Esau 
are  excluded),  and  its  seal  on  the  body  of  every  Israelite. 
As  long  as  such  a  covenant  had  significance  for  the  religious 
consciousness  of  the  Jews,  as  long  as  the  idea  of  a  close 
covenant  of  love  excluding  the  nations  (upon  which  the 
whole  theocratic  relationship  was  based)  was  deeply  rooted 
in  the  people's  thought,  the  circumcision  was  the  charac- 
teristic symbol  of  this  covenant,  and  was  therefore  clung 
to  with  particular  zeal  in  Israel.  But  after  this  idea  of  the 
particular  covenant  which  underlies  circumcision  has 
ceased  to  be  a  religious  truth  and  an  object  of  faith  protest 
must  be  lodged  against  circumcision,  the  expression  of  an 
outlived  idea.  It  testifies  to  something  which  is  not  true— 
yes,  to  something  which  is,  in  fact,  denied  by  all  Israelites 
who  have  become  self-conscious.  The  Jew  to-day  believes 
by  no  manner  of  means  that  he  through  the  accident  of 
descent  from  Abraham  stands  in  a  close  special  relationship 
to  God,  and  that  he  is  obligated  to  give  visible  evidence  of 
this  closer  relationship  by  a  sign  in  the  flesh.  I  am  opposed 
to  circumcision  on  principle  and  declare  every  Jew  who 
confides  in  my  religious  insight  and  conscientiousness, 
absolved  from  all  obligation  in  this  matter.  Yes,  I  declare 
every  Jew  who  neglects  to  have  his  son  circumcised  because 
of  his  larger  belief  to  be  a  true  and  complete  Jew.  Finally, 
I  declare  righteousness  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  term,  i.  e., 
equality  for  all  men,  humanity  and  brotherhood  together 
with  the  living,  stirring  zeal  to  realize  these  things  in  all 
circles  of  life  to  be  the  practical  realization  of  the  God- 
cognition  of  Judaism  and  hence  the  true  and  pure  Juda- 
ism." 

The  extreme  program  outlined  in  this  response  of  Hold- 


EEFOEM  IN  HUNGARY  393 

helm  was  carried  into  practice  nowhere  in  Hungary  except 
in  Pesth,  as  has  been  stated.  The  career  of  the  Pesth  Re- 
form Congregation  was  troubled  and  brief.  Its  rabbi,  Ig- 
natz  Einhorn,  left  the  city  after  the  downfall  of  the  Hun- 
garian republic,  served  as  chaplain  to  the  garrison  of  the 
fortress  of  Komorn,  was  amnestied  after  the  capitulation 
of  that  fortress,  but  soon  after  retired  to  Germany,  where 
he  lived  in  exile  many  years. 

During  the  ensuing  two  years  (1849-1851)  the  directory 
of  the  congregation  strained  every  effort  towards  obtaining 
rights  of  incorporation  as  a  separate  congregation.  Their 
experiences  were  similar  to  those  of  the  Berlin  congrega- 
tion. l  The  government  finally  rendered  a  decision  refusing 
the  petition  of  the  directory  on  the  ground  that  the  congre- 
gation had  no  positive  dogmas  which  had  to  be  accepted  as 
the  condition  of  membership,  and  it  was  the  purpose  of  the 
Minister  of  Public  Worship  to  prevent  the  multiplication 
of  religious  organizations  of  this  character. 2  As  was  the 
case  with  the  Berlin  reformers,  their  Pesth  brethren  in 
spirit  conceived  Judaism  to  be  non-dogmatic  in  the  sense 
of  not  requiring  subscription  to  a  creed  as  a  condition  of 
salvation.  This  point  has  been  discussed  fully  in  a  previous 
chapter  and  may  therefore  be  dismissed  with  this  mention.3 

The  directory  of  the  congregation  had  been  negotiating 
for  some  time  with  David  Einhorn,  chief  rabbi  of  Mecklen- 
burg-Schwerin,  one  of  the  best  known  of  the  reform  lead- 
ers, with  a  view  to  his  accepting  the  position  of  rabbi.  Ein- 
horn signified  his  acceptance  in  October,  1851,  and  in  Jan- 
uary, 1852,  preached  his  inaugural  sermon.  In  this  sermon 
he  declared  that  reform  meant  a  great  deal  more  than  the 
introduction  of  external  changes  in  the  worship ;  the  organ, 
worship  with  uncovered  heads  and  the  like  are  mere  ac- 
companying incidents ;  reform  is  ' '  nothing  less  than  a  Jew- 
ish-religious transformation. "  He  set  forth  the  ideas  and 
purposes  of  the  reform  movement;  he  denied  that  reform 

1  Supra,  362-4.         2J.  Z.  d.  J.,  XV  (1851),  270.  *  Supra,  362. 


394  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

breaks  with  the  past  and  Jewish  tradition;  he  denned  the 
attitude  of  reform  towards  the  Mosaic  law,  the  eternal  ele- 
ments of  which  must  be  distinguished  from  the  transitory. 
' '  If  the  transitory  nature  of  certain  Mosaic  laws  is  granted 
on  all  sides,  who  will  deny  that  we  stand  on  Biblical  ground 
if  we  contend  for  the  capacity  of  development  and  change 
in  ceremonial  institutions?"  Speaking  of  the  Talmud,  he 
said  that  although  the  reformers  were  far  from  considering 
it  divinely  inspired,  and  although  its  interpretation  of  the 
Mosaic  law  is  different  from  theirs,  yet  they  recognize  that 
it  has  developed  their  sacred  heritage  in  several  directions— 
e.  g.,  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul— and  that 
many  a  nugget  of  truth  is  to  be  found  in  it.  *  *  Judaism  may 
not  be  deprived  of  the  least  of  its  precious  possessions, ' '  he 
declared;  "it  is  the  mission  of  the  present  to  continue  its 
development;  by  no  means  to  break  with  the  past,  but  to 
enlist  the  old  in  the  service  of  the  new  and  to  preserve  it  in 
transfigured  form."1  Einhorn 's  assumption  of  the  rab- 
binical office  aroused  the  opposition  to  greater  activity  than 
ever.  After  the  suppression  of  the  revolution  and  the  col- 
lapse of  the  Kossuth  movement  the  reactionary  elements 
were  in  power,  and  reform  of  whatever  kind  found  little 
favor  with  the  government;  hence,  the  orthodox  party  by 
representing  to  the  government  that  the  reform  congrega- 
tion was  revolutionary  in  character,  as  far  as  its  attitude 
towards  Judaism  was  concerned,  succeeded  in  having  the 
reform  temple  closed  by  order  of  the  government  within  a 
short  time  after  Einhorn's  coming;  the  congregation  dis- 
solved, and  several  years  later  Einhorn  emigrated  to  the 
United  States,  where  he  assumed  charge  of  the  Har  Sinai 
Congregation  of  Baltimore.  True,  the  Pesth  reformers  did 
go  to  extreme  lengths.  Their  program  was  ultra-radical; 
but  it  is  likely  that  even  a  moderate  reform  congregation 
would  have  met  the  same  fate,  for  the  temper  of  the 

*Dr.  David  Einhorn 's  Ausgewahlte  Predigten  und  Eeden  Tieraus- 
gegeben  von  Dr.  K.  Kohler,  19-31.     New  York,  1881. 


REFORM  IX  HUNGARY  395 

authorities  was  unfavorable  to  any  movement  anywhere 
that  differed  with  the  traditional  status  quo. 

Orthodoxy  prevailed  in  Hungary ;  individually  thousands 
of  Jews  had  broken  with  rabbinical  tradition  but  officially 
Judaism  continued  along  the  traditional  lines.  A  few  con- 
gregations introduced  such  innovations  as  the  sermon  in 
the  vernacular  and  music  by  a  choir,  and  this  remains  the 
extent  of  reform  to  this  day ;  a  re-interpretation  of  Judaism 
in  the  light  of  modern  culture  and  the  outlook  of  modern 
man  has  not  taken  place  in  the  Magyar  land. 

The  celebrated  Hungarian  Jewish  Congress  which  met 
from  December  14,  1868,  to  February  23,  1869,  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Jewish  communities 
avoided  the  discussion  of  purely  religious  points  for  fear 
of  interfering  with  the  project  of  union.  Still,  the  emanci- 
pation spirit  which  marked  the  majority  of  the  delegates 
to  this  congress  and  caused  them  to  view  educational  and 
civil  questions  in  the  light  of  modern  development,  even 
though  they  scrupulously  evaded  all  matters  of  religious  be- 
lief and  practice,  aroused  the  bitter  animosity  of  the  un- 
compromising orthodox  party,  who  seceded  from  the  con- 
gress in  a  body.  The  state  of  Judaism  in  Hungary  after 
the  Congress  was  worse  than  before,  for  the  Jews  were  split 
into  four  irreconcilable  factions— the  " Congress"  party, 
the  orthodox,  the  so-called  " Status  ante  quo"  party,  and 
the  Chassidaic  communities  that  called  themselves  Sep- 
hardim. 1  These  factions  divided  on  educational  and 

1  For  a  description  of  this  result  of  the  Congress,  cf .  ' '  Die  Juden- 
schaft  in  TJngarn,"  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXVI  (1872),  24.  Cf.  also  the 
manifesto  issued  in  1880  by  the  rabbis  of  the  orthodox  party  against 
the  Buda-Pesth  theological  seminary,  founded  and  sponsored  by  the 
"Congress"  party.  Tbid.,  1880,  374.  As  elsewhere  the  rigidly 
orthodox  party  looked  upon  modern  education  as  neology;  magyari- 
zation  was  confounded  with  reform.  The  Yeshibah  at  Pressburg 
continued  along  the  traditional  mediaeval  lines.  This  Yeshibah, 
having  received  recognition  as  a  public  institution  whose  students 
were  excused  from  military  duty,  the  Minister  of  Public  Worship 


396  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

emancipational  issues;  religiously  they  are  practically  on 
the  same  footing.  Religious  reform  as  conceived  by  the 
German  theologians  and  as  realized  in  the  United  States  is 
unknown. 

The  chief  practical  achievement  of  the  ' '  Congress ' '  party 
was  the  establishment  of  the  rabbinical  seminary  at  Buda- 
Pesth  from  the  fund  administered  by  the  government  for 
purposes  of  Jewish  education ;  although  the  religious  stand- 
point of  the  seminary  is  rabbinico-traditional,  still  it  differs 
radically  with  the  Yeshibot  in  that  its  students  are  per- 
meated with  the  modern  spirit  as  far  as  education  in  sec- 
ular branches  is  concerned.  The  establishment  of  this 
seminary  aroused  the  bitter  wrath  of  the  orthodox  party, 
not  alone  in  Hungary,  but  in  Germany.1 

In  1889  the  orthodox  rabbis  denounced  the  reformers 
in  an  address  to  the  government.  By  the  reformers  they 
meant  the  Congress  party,  although  this  party  was  as  little 
a  reform  party  in  the  religious  sense  as  the  ultra-orthodox. 
The  occasion  of  this  denunciation  was  the  order  of  the 
government  requiring  the  proper  registration  of  the  Jews.2 
startled  the  orthodox  authorities  when,  in  1883,  he  issued  an  edict  to 
the  effect  that  all  students  (bachurim)  who  entered  the  Pressburg 
yeshibah  must  have  passed  successfully  the  examinations  of  the  four 
lower  classes  of  the  gymnasium  or  the  public  school,  and  must  be 
able  to  show  a  certificate  from  some  public  institution  for  "the 
public  weal  demands  that  the  rabbis  issuing  from  the  yeshibah 
should  possess  a  secular  education,  in  addition  to  the  requisite 
theological  attainments,  and  should  have  a  knowledge  of  the  national 
language  and  attainments  necessary  for  a  beneficial  career  in  our 
fatherland. "  Ibid.,  XL VII,  1883,  404-5. 

1  Leopold     Low,     "Frankfurt     und     Of  en-Pest"     in     Gesammelte 
Schriften,  IV,  509. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LIII  (1889),  573-5.     This  manifesto  of  the  orthodox 
rabbis  caused  the  government   to  submit  an  inquiry  to  the  secular 
heads  of   Hungarian  Jewry.     These,  in  a  lengthy  document  of   the 
date  of  November  25,  1889,  repudiated  the  contention  of  the  ortho- 
dox rabbis  that  there  were  two  wings  of  Jewish  thought,  although 
granting  that  there  were  different   customs  among  various  sections 
of  Jews.     They  closed  the  communication  thus:     "Hence  we  request 


EEFORM  IN  HUNGARY  397 

Many  vital  changes  in  the  social  and  political  position  of 
the  Jews,  including  civil  emancipation  and  the  recognition 
of  Judaism  as  one  of  the  religions  in  the  state,  have  taken 
place,  it  is  true ;  but  this  lies  without  the  scope  of  this  in- 
vestigation. The  Jewish  religious  situation  in  Hungary 
to-day  presents  the  same  tragical  spectacle  as  in  other 
European  lands— a  complete  break  between  practice  and 
official  profession.  Had  reform  succeeded  in  its  purpose, 
a  reconciliation  would  have  taken  place,  and  the  Jew's  re- 
ligion would  have  been  a  present  living  force,  instead  of 
something  foreign  to  his  life,  which  it  now  is  so  generally 
in  Hungary  as  well  as  in  the  other  European  countries. 

Your  Excellency  to  refuse  the  request  of  the  orthodox  commission 
to  recognize  two  wings  of  Jewish  religious  belief  and  to  guarantee 
the  uniform  organization  of  Jewry  by  a  decree  as  soon  as  possible." 
See  ibid.,  789. 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUBG  SYNODS 

UP  to  the  time  of  the  rise  of  the  reform  movement  there 
had  been  no  question  as  to  what  was  valid  or  invalid  in 
Judaism.  The  Talmudical  and  rabbinical  decisions  as  cod- 
ified in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  were  the  norm  of  authority. 
This  was,  and  among  orthodox  Jews  still  is,  the  official 
standard  of  religious  soundness.  All  the  laws  were  of 
equal  weight;  the  purely  religious  and  moral  injunctions 
had  no  greater  sanction  than  the  dietary  laws  or  the  minu- 
tiae of  rabbinical  dialectics  in  the  matter  of  Sabbath  ob- 
servance ;  no  discrimination  as  to  greater  or  less  validity  of 
any  of  the  laws  was  entertained.1  *  Even  though  it  was 
notorious  that  thousands  of  Jews  disregarded  the  injunc- 
tions of  the  codes,  and  that  life  in  the  world  made  the 
observance  of  many  of  the  traditional  laws  almost  impos- 
sible, yet  rigid  orthodoxy  would  not  yield  an  inch;  it  did 
not  even  attempt  to  re-interpret  and  re-shape  the  traditions 
to  meet  the  changed  situation.  Many,  too,  there  were  who 
took  the  position  that  individual  Jews  might  disobserve  the 
traditional  laws,  but  official  Judaism  as  represented  by  the 
officiating  rabbis  and  the  congregations  must  cling  to  the 

1  This  has  been  stated  frequently  by  leaders  of  orthodox  Judaism. 
Samson  Raphael  Hirsch  put  it  very  tersely:  ''Das  jiidische  Gesetz 
ist  vollkommen  und  alles  an  ihm  ist  f undemental : — man  hat  die 
Wahl  sich  voll  und  gang  an  ihm  zu  bekennen  oder  es  zu  leugnen" 
(Jeschurun,  XV,  34).  See  also  Friedlander,  The  Jewish  Religion, 
239,  where,  in  proof  of  the  contention  that  all  commands  are  of  equal 
weight,  it  is  stated  ' '  The  commandments  '  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself  and  'a  garment  of  divers  kinds  shall  not  come  upon 
thee'  stand  side  by  side  in  the  same  paragraph";  see  also  Hid.,  235. 

398 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  399 

Talmudical  traditions  as  delivered  from  the  past.1  The  re- 
formers, however,  were  not  content  to  rest  in  such  an  incon- 
sistency. For  them  the  Shulchan  Aruk  had  ceased  to  speak 
with  authoritative  voice;  but  men  always  long  for  some 
authority,  or  at  least  for  some  guidance.  Since  they  had 
broken  away  from  the  old  moorings,  the  reformers  were 
greatly  at  sea;  individualism  was  rampant;  the  rabbinical 
conferences  had  been  instituted  with  the  purpose  of  stem- 
ming this  individualistic  tide  and  of  constituting  some  body 
of  agreement  as  to  the  teaching  of  the  new  movement.  True, 
the  Conferences  did  not  arrogate  to  themselves  any  binding 
authority,  but  there  can  be  little  question  that  many  had 
hoped  that  the  decisions  reached  and  the  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  conferences  would  serve  at  least  as  a  new  "guide  of 
the  perplexed"  in  the  constant  clashings  which  were  taking 
place  between  the  requirements  of  life  and  Jewish  practice 
and  belief.  The  Conferences  did  not  succeed  in  fulfilling 
this  expectation.  When  this  became  apparent,  voices  were 
heard  to  the  effect  that  the  Conferences  had  failed  in  this 
respect  because  they  were  not  representative  popular  as- 
semblies ;  they  did  not  originate  from  among  the  people,  and 
the  people  had  no  voice  in  their  deliberations;  therefore, 
let  synods  be  convened  to  be  participated  in  by  rabbis  and 
laymen,  scholars  and  teachers,  theologians  and  men  of 

*M.  Kalisch,  Das  VerMltniss  der  judischen  Gemeinden  zu  den 
Beformgenossenschaften  nach  den  Kultusbestimmungen  des  Gesetzes 
vom  23  Juli,  1847,  p.  4.  Berlin,  1848.  This  is  the  argument  ad- 
vanced by  most  anti-reformers  who  desire  to  maintain  the  status  quo, 
but  yet  wish  to  vindicate  to  the  individual  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment. Twenty  years  later  a  writer  in  the  Monatschrift  fur  Geschichte 
und  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums  (whose  standpoint  was  just  this  of 
orthodoxy  in  practice  and  the  greatest  heterodoxy  in  theory)  claims 
that  Judaism  is  practice  and  not  dogma;  that  a  rabbi  can  entertain 
the  freest  opinions  privately,  but  cannot  carry  these  out  in  practice 
as  a  rabbi,  because  as  such  he  is  the  representative  of  the  congrega- 
tion. XIX  (1869),  328.  This  is  in  truth  the  position  of  modern 
German  orthodoxy  (1907),  which  blinks  at  the  widest  laxity  in 
individual  observances,  but  demands  official  conformity. 


400  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

practical  affairs.  Judaism  had  never  known  the  distinc- 
tion between  clergy  and  laity ;  not  sacerdotalism,  but  knowl- 
edge, was  the  mark  of  distinction  between  Jew  and  Jew; 
therefore,  the  rabbinical  Conferences  which  had  had  only 
officiating  rabbis  as  members  were  not  truly  representative 
of  the  Jewish  spirit;  only  a  synod  would  be  such.  The 
synod  would  be  the  authoritative  organization.  It  would 
determine  the  position  to  be  taken  on  the  many  vexed  points 
of  belief  and  practice  among  the  Jews.  Notably  in  the 
fifth  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  the  call  for  a 
synod  frequent  and  insistent.  The  introduction  of  reforms 
in  various  congregations  was  largely  a  matter  of  caprice— 
here  more,  there  less ;  there  was  no  authority  to  declare  how 
far  congregations  should  go.  Many  felt  that  this  unsettled, 
indefinite  condition  was  causing  untold  harm ;  they  felt  no 
less  that  a  clear  presentation  of  what  constituted  the  prin- 
ciples of  Jewish  belief  and  procedure  on  the  basis  of  the 
changes  that  the  modern  era  had  brought  would  reconcile 
the  contending  opposites  in  Jewish  life.  As  stated  in  a 
previous  chapter, 1  the  recommendation  that  a  synod  be 
convened  emanated  from  the  founders  of  the  Berlin  Re- 
form Congregation;  in  that  chapter  the  pros  and  cons  of 
the  synodical  idea  were  discussed,  and  to  expatiate  upon 
them  here  is  therefore  unnecessary.  It  is  worthy  of  note 
that  the  demand  for  a  synod  at  this  time  (1845-50)  issued 
from  a  number  of  independent  quarters;  the  Breslau  Re- 
formgenossenschaft  seconded  the  suggestion  of  the  Ber- 
linese ; 2  a  French  writer,  Jerome  Aron,  advocated  its 
organization  in  the  columns  of  the  newspaper  L'ami  des 
Israelites  in  1847. 3  When  it  was  found  impracticable  or 
unfeasible  to  continue  the  rabbinical  Conferences  the  execu- 
tive committee  that  had  been  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  con- 
vening the  fourth  Conference,  recommended  that  a  synod  to 
be  participated  in  by  both  rabbis  and  laymen  be  called  into 

1  Supra,  329.  2  Ibid.,  373. 

8  See  also  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XII  (1848),  p.  6. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  401 

being  to  take  the  place  of  the  Conference1;  a  number  of 
Jews  of  Worms  styling  themselves  Friends  of  Eeform,  ad- 
dressed and  published  a  communication  to  their  co-relig- 
ionists in  1848  setting  forth  a  reform  program  and  closing 
with  the  demand  for  a  synod  ;2  so  also  a  society  in  Munich 
(Israelitischer  Fortschrittsverein)  advocated  the  same  at 
this  time;3  on  August  31,  1848,  a  self -formed  Committee 
of  Frankfort  Jews  issued  a  call  for  a  preliminary  meeting, 
preparatory  to  the  convening  of  a  synod.  At  this  prelim- 
inary meeting,  which  was  held  on  October  23  and  24,  it 
was  resolved  to  call  a  synod  in  the  spring  of  1849. 4  This 
was  a  paper  resolution,  for  the  synod  was  not  convened. 
Three  prominent  rabbis,  Philippson,  Formstecher,  and 
Stein  advocated  the  advisability  of  the  movement.5  In 
1849  Ludwig  Philippson  called  upon  the  directorate  of  the 
Berlin  Jewish  community  to  take  the  initiative  in  creating 
a  Prussian  synod.8  However,  no  action  resulted  from  all 
this  agitation.  In  fact,  the  energy  that  had  flamed  into 
such  remarkable  activity  in  the  cause  of  religious  reform 
during  the  years  1837-1848  had  consumed  itself  and  was 
followed  by  a  lassitude  that  endured  for  well-nigh  twenty 
years.  The  tremendous  political  upheaval  of  the  year  1848 
may  have,  nay,  undoubtedly  did  have,  much  to  do  with 
this,  for  there  was  little  time  or  attention  for  anything  but 
the  revolutionary  changes  wrought  by  the  agitations  of  that 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XII  (1848),  470.  'Ibid.,  428. 

•A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XII  (1848),  601. 

•A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XII  (1848),  658,  675,  759.  B Ibid.,  469,  481. 

'Ibid.,  XIII  (1849),  9.  A  few  months  later  in  the  issue  of 
June  11  (313-316),  Philippson  had  a  strong  editorial  entitled,  "Die 
Synode  und  die  Gegenwart,"  in  which  he  set  forth  the  absolute 
necessity  of  the  synod  which  had  to  do  for  the  present  what  the 
sanhedrin  at  Tiberias  did  for  Judaism  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  A  collection  of  opinions  for  and  against  the  synod  has 
been  published  recently  by  the  Central  Conference  of  American 
Kabbis,  entitled  ' '  Views  on  the  Synod, ' '  Baltimore,  1905.  In  this  col- 
lection the  opinions  which  are  here  referred  to  are  quoted  at  length. 
26 


402  THE  KEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

year  of  struggle  in  the  cause  of  liberty.  Notably  did  this 
hold  true  of  the  Jews,  for  there  was  no  section  of  the  peo- 
ple for  whom  the  changes  then  wrought  in  the  constitutions 
of  states  were  of  greater  significance  in  the  securing  of 
civil  and  political  rights.  There  is  little  cause  for  surprise, 
then,  that  all  other  interests  fell  into  the  background  and 
were  overshadowed  completely  by  the  political  issues;  but 
even  after  the  excitement  had  toned  down  and  the  political 
stream  was  flowing  smoothly  through  the  new  channel 
which  the  revolutionary  year  had  cut,  the  interest  of  the 
Jewish  communities  in  religious  matters  could  not  be 
aroused  to  a  high  pitch. 1  It  seemed  to  be  impossible  to 
convene  a  gathering  for  the  discussion  of  Jewish  religious 
concerns. 2  True,  there  were  not  lacking  individual  voices 
which  called  for  action.3 

1  See  speech  of  Dr.  A.  M.  Goldschmidt,  rabbi  of  Leipzig,  at  the 
opening  of  Leipzig  Synod.     ' '  Verliandlungen  der  ersten  israelitischen 
Synode  zu  Leipzig. ' '    Berlin,  1869. 

2  Several  exceptions  to  this  statement  may  be  noted,  but  in  lands 
outside  of  Germany;   thus  in  1850  a  synod  of  Bohemian  Jews  con- 
vened upon  the  call  of  the  government  to  work  out  a  plan  for  con- 
gregational organization,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XIV,  646,  679,   713,  XV,   7. 
In  1856  a  meeting  of  the  grand  rabbis  of  the  different  French  con- 
sistories took  place  at  Paris  pursuant  to  a  call  issued  by  the  grand 
rabbi    of    France,    S.   Ulmann.     This   meeting   deliberated   upon   the 
necessity  and  advisibility  of  introducing  a  number  of  reforms  into 
the  service;  however,  it  was  left  to  each  grand  rabbi  to  introduce  the 
reforms  or  not,  according  to  what  seemed  to  him  the  needs  of  his 
consistory;  see  "The  Jews  of  France,"  by  S.  Debre,  J.  Q.  E.,  Ill, 
389   ff. 

8  Thus  a  call  was  addressed  on  July  9,  1848,  to  the  German  rabbis 
by  a  Dr.  Steinfeld  to  meet  and  advance  the  cause  of  reform.  This, 
he  claimed,  should  be  done  particularly  in  this  time  of  freedom  when 
liberty  has  been  gained  in  all  other  fields.  His  call  ended  with  these 
words:  "Die  Kef ormf rage  ist  sehr  drangend;  sie  ist  unabweisbar; 
sie  ist  die  hochste  Nothwendigkeit ;  der  ganze  Bestand  unserer  Ke- 
ligion  ist  dabei  interessirt  und  wir  erblicken  keine  Zukunft  fiir  die- 
selbe,  falls  sie  sich  nicht  aufrichtig  und  ganz  der  Eeform  sich  in  die 
Arme  wirft,"  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XII,  440.  See  also  an  article,  "Die 
Eef  ormf  rage  in  diesen  Tagen"  (May  29,  1848),  by  Ludwig  Philipp- 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  403 

Still,  it  may  not  be  forgotten  that  although  there  were 
no  such  gatherings,  and  although,  further,  there  were  no 
striking  occurrences  in  the  Jewish  world  directing  attention 
to  the  reform  cause,  as  had  been  so  constantly  the  case  in 
the  years  preceding  the  March  revolutions  of  1848,  yet  re- 
form had  conquered  in  so  far  as  in  scores  of  congregations 
reforms  had  been  and  were  being  constantly  introduced. 
These  reforms  were  not  fav-reaching,  it  is  true;  but  they 
were  evidential  of  the  fact  that  the  spirit  of  progress  had 
touched  the  Jewish  communities.1  During  this  period, 
however,  a  tendency  towards  romanticism  showed  itself 
and  through  the  influence  of  the  Breslau  theological  semi- 
nary, which  had  been  founded  in  1855,  a  conservative  reac- 
tion set  in  ;2  but  even  more  than  this  must  be  accounted  the 
activity  of  the  neo-orthodox  party  which  largely,  under  the 
leadership  of  Samson  Eaphael  Hirsch,  sought  to  stifle  every 
effort  towards  reform  and  religious  progress.  Notably 
through  the  influence  which  he  wielded  by  means  of  his 
organ,  the  Jeschurun,  did  Hirsch  administer  many  a  body- 
blow  to  the  cause  of  reform ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  reform- 
ers began  to  bestir  themselves  actively,  and  in  the  "sixties" 
new  signs  of  life  began  to  appear.3  In  1865  Abraham  Geiger, 
in  an  essay  entitled  "What  is  Needed?"4  described  the 
unsettled  condition  of  affairs  in  Judaism.  He  showed  how 
in  practice  the  Jews  had  wandered  far  from  orthodox  lines, 

son,  in  which  he  urges  his  co-religionists  not  to  lose  sight  of  the 
necessity  of  religious  reforms  because  of  the  large  political  questions 
which  were  engaging  the  attention  of  all  men.  Ibid. 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XV  (1851),  400,  "Life  has  decided  in  favor  of  re- 
form.    Every  Jewish  house  testifies  to  this;   for  here  as  everywhere 
it  is  the  first  step  that  counts.     No  matter  what  be  the  attitude  of 
individuals  and  of  separate  congregations  the  reconciliation  of  the 
historical  elements  with  the  spirit  of  modernity  will  be  accomplished. ' ' 

2  Geiger,  J.  Z.   W.  L.,  I,  172-3.     IUd.,  251,  Alte  Romantilc  neue 
ReaTctim. 

3  See  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  I,  251  (1862)  ;  II,  267;  IV,  81-96.     "Zur 
gegenwartige  Lage." 

4  Was  thut  Noth?    Hid.,  Ill,  251-258, 


404  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

and  that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  had  no  conception 
of  the  true  inwardness  of  Judaism.  Although  the  life  of 
the  people  was  in  total  contradiction  with  Talmudical  and 
rabbinical  dicta,  yet  these  still  stood  as  the  official  teach- 
ings of  the  synagogue ;  hence  an  insufferable  state  of  incon- 
sistency and  contradiction.  One  of  the  great  needs  of  the 
time,  therefore,  was  "  large  gatherings  for  the  discussion 
of  Jewish  questions."  Geiger's  suggestion  was  received 
sympathetically.1  Many  rabbis  felt  as  he  did,  and  again 
it  was  the  rabbis  who  in  this  time  of  renewed  agitation  and 
discussion  assembled  for  the  consideration  of  the  problems 
arising  from  the  conflicts  between  life  and  tradition.  On 
August  11,  (12,  13,  1868,  twenty-four  rabbis  gathered  at 
Cassel  to  confer  together.  These  rabbis  were  L.  Adler,  of 
Cassel ;  J.  Aub,  of  Berlin ;  Ben-Israel,  of  Coblentz ;  J.  Cohn, 
of  Trier;  A.  Cassel,  of  Schwerin  a.  d.  Warthe;  T.  Cohn,  of 
Potsdam ;  H.  Englebert,  of  St.  Gallen ;  S.  Formstecher,  of 
Offenbach;  Friedman,  of  Mannheim;  Fiirst,  of  Bayreuth; 
A.  Geiger,  of  Frankfort ;  Goldmann,  of  Birkenfeld ;  A.  M. 
Goldschmidt,  of  Leipzig;  S.  Herxheimer,  of  Bernburg;  J. 
Hochstadter,  of  Ems ;  M.  Joel,  of  Breslau ;  M.  Kayserling, 
of  Lengnau ;  B.  Levi,  of  Giessen ;  J.  Mayer,  of  Hechingen ; 
L.  Philippson,  of  Bonn;  G.  Philippson,  of  Dessau;  J. 
Rothschild,  of  Alzey;  B.  Wechsler,  of  Oldenburg;  A. 
Wiener,  of  Oppeln. 

L.  Philippson  submitted  for  consideration  thirty  points 
touching  the  liturgy ;  these  liturgical  questions  called  forth 
a  lengthy  debate.  All  expressed  themselves  to  the  effect 
that  it  was  advisable  to  prepare  a  union  Prayer-Book2  for 
congregations  desiring  reform.  The  only  resolutions 

1  Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  VI,  169. 

2  This  was  urged  because  a  number  of  prayer-books  had  been  issued 
by  individual   rabbis    (Geiger,   Philippson,   Stein,   Aub   and  others). 
The  divisions  in  the  reform  camp  were  emphasized  by  this  tendency 
to  produce  individual  prayer-books.     The  suggestion  first  made  at  the 
Cassel  Conference  to  issue  a  union  prayer-book  for  reform  congre- 
gations did  not  bear  fruit  till  1894,  when  the  Union  Prayer-Book 
was  issued  by  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Eabbis. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  4Q5 

adopted  in  reference  to  the  liturgy,  however,  were  the 
recommendations  to  the  congregations  that  the  Torah  be 
read  through  every  three  years  (the  triennial  cycle)  ;  that 
the  Tefillah  (the  eighteen  benedictions)  be  recited  but  once 
during  the  service,  except  on  New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day 
of  Atonement,  and  that  the  sections  between  Bor'ku  and 
Sh'ma  and  between  Sh'ma  and  the  Tefillah  be  cast  into 
the  vernacular  •  that  the  haftara  be  read  in  the  vernacular, 
and  that  the  Commission  on  Liturgy  make  a  new  selection 
of  Haftarot  agreeably  to  the  Torah  readings  arranged  for 
the  triennial  cycle,  in  which  selection  passages  from 
Hagiographa  were  to  be  included.  The  feeling  among 
those  present  was  that  no  definite  action  should  be  taken  on 
any  of  the  other  subjects  presented  in  order  to  disprove 
the  frequently  preferred  charge  that  the  rabbis  had  hier- 
archical ambitions;  this  Conference  was  to  be  considered 
merely  preparatory  to  a  synod.  It  was  therefore  resolved 
that  "the  rabbis  assembled  at  Cassel  constitute  themselves 
into  a  preliminary  assembly,  in  order  to  prepare  for  period- 
ical gatherings,  to  which  also  Jewish  scholars  who  are  not 
officiating  ministers  and  the  representatives  of  the  congre- 
gations are  to  be  invited. ' ' 1  They  resolved,  further,  that 
all  the  resolutions  which  were  offered  at  the  Conference 
should  be  referred  to  commissions  who  were  to  prepare 
reports  to  be  submitted  to  the  synod,  which  was  to  be 
called  in  accordance  with  the  above  resolution.  The 
formation  of  local  or  provincial  synods  preparatory  to 
the  general  synod  was  advised. 2  The  need  for  a  synod 
was  felt  particularly,  because  many  congregations  were 
divided  into  reform  and  orthodox  factions;  there  was 
also  prevalent  the  fear  lest  the  indifferent  would  with- 
draw from  the  congregations  and  thus  evade  contribut- 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXII  (1868),  691;  the  minutes  of  the  conference 
were  published  as  a  supplement  to  No.  IV  of  Vol.  XXXIII  (1869). 

2Geiger,  Die  Babbinerversammlung  in  Cassel  Judische  Zeitschrift 
-fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  VT,  241-247,  where  he  discusses  the 
character  of  the  synod.  This  was  to  be  deliberative  and  not  au- 
thoritative; "die  Macht  der  Ueberzeugung  muss  wirken,  nicht  die 
iibertragene  Gewalt." 


406  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ing  their  share  towards  the  maintenance  of  the  congre- 
gations. Since  the  laity  were  especially  concerned  in 
the  composition  of  the  congregations,  it  was  concluded 
that  they  should  be  asked  to  assist  in  the  solution  of  the 
difficulties  presented  by  the  situation  by  participation  in  a 
synod  to  be  composed  of  rabbinical  and  lay  delegates.1  L. 
Adler,  L.  Philippson  and  J.  Aub  were  appointed  the  com- 
mittee to  call  the  synod.  Four  additional  commissions 
were  elected  to  prepare  the  work  for  the  synod,  viz. :  On 
the  Liturgy— L.  Adler,  L.  Philippson,  and  M.  Joel;  on 
Ritual  Laws— J.  Cohn,  A.  Wiener,  and  L.  Adler;  on  Mar- 
riage Laws— Friedman,  J.  Aub,  and  A.  Geiger;  on  Schools 
and  Religious  Education— S.  Herxheimer,  J.  Hochstadter 
and  G.  Philippson.  This  Conference,  then,  has  a  place  in 
the  history  of  the  reform  movement  merely  as  preliminary 
to  the  Liepzig  Synod.2 

As  might  have  been  expected,  the  opponents  of  reform 
broke  forth  in  harsh  diatribes  against  the  Conference,  as 
had  their  predecessors  twenty-five  years  previously;3  but, 

1L.  Philippson,  Geschichte  der  deutscJien  Rabbinerversammlungen 
und  Synoden;  a  series  of  articles  written  on  the  occasion  of  the 
fortieth  anniversary  of  the  Brunswick  Conference.  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
XLVIII  (1884),  262. 

2  The  synod  was  strongly  urged  by  the  rabbis  because  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  rabbinical  conferences  had  remained  for  the  most  part 
a  dead  letter.     It  was  thought  that  the  resolutions  of  a  synod  would 
be  given  heed  to  because  the  synod  would  be  representative  of  all  the 
elements  in  Jewry,  rabbinical  and  lay,  reform  and  orthodox.     Cf. 
Philippson,  Die  Synode,  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LI  (1887),  502. 

3  See  Jeshurun,  XIV    (1868),   339-352,   where   S.   E.   Hirsch   uses 
these    words:    "so    hat    die    Keform    einmal    wiederum    ihre    vollige 
Impotenz,  ihre  vollige  produktive  Unfahigkeit  erwiesen — sic  hat  ein 
schmahliches  Fiasco   gemacht. ' '     The  bitterness  of  feeling  of  neo- 
orthodoxy  against  reform  appears  also  in  several  articles  published 
about  this  time  in  the  Monatsschrift  fiir  Geschichte  und  Wissenschaft 
des  Judenthums,  XIX,  81-88,  122-133.     They  were  called  forth  by  the 
jubilee  celebration  in  the  Hamburg  Temple  congregation  in  October, 
1868,  on  the  occasion  of  its  fiftieth  anniversary.     The  titles  of  the 
articles   are   sufficient   indication   of   their   contents,    I,    Reform  und 
Reformschwindel,  II,  Die  Gebetmacherei. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  407 

nothing  daunted  by  the  opposition,  the  committee  to  whom 
had  been  entrusted  the  chief  task,  viz.,  to  take  steps  to  con- 
vene a  synod,  went  to  work  at  once,  and  in  February,  1869, 
published  to  the  Jewish  world  a  document  under  the  head- 
ing "Invitation  to  the  rabbis,  Jewish  scholars,  and  congre- 
gational boards  to  the  Synodal  Assembly."  This  docu- 
ment was  as  follows :  * '  At  the  close  of  the  past  century  the 
European  Jews  began  to  participate  in  the  general  activity 
of  the  world,  owing  to  the  gradual  removal  of  the  barriers 
which  had  excluded  them  from  industrial  life,  social  ameni- 
ties, general  and  scientific  culture  and  public  service. 
Under  the  influence  of  these  completely  changed  conditions 
new  and  fresh  life  awoke  in  our  midst  in  the  province  of 
religion,  with  the  result  that  different  views  and  many  con- 
flicts arose  in  the  religious  field.  In  spite  of  the  indes- 
tructible fealty  of  the  Jews  which  is  as  ready  to-day  as  at 
any  time  in  the  past  to  bring  all  sacrifices  in  act  and  suffer- 
ing, there  yet  arose  a  growing  confusion  and  an  almost  in- 
describable diversity  among  individuals  and  in  congrega- 
tions. Every  individual  was  a  law  to  himself  as  far  as 
religious  practices  went,  and  the  same  was  the  case  with 
congregations  in  their  religious  institutions.  From  these 
conflicts  parties  issued  which  called  into  being  inner  divi- 
sions, and  in  many  places  violent  conflicts  took  place  where- 
by the  condition  of  Judaism  became  ever  more  confused 
and  precarious.  A  religion  of  the  minority,  a  religion  of 
scattered  small  divisions,  can  be  exposed  to  no  greater 
danger  than  to  become  internally  divided,  conflicting,  hesi- 
tating, and  agitated  by  violent  party  strife.  It  is  readily 
comprehensible  that  such  a  condition  can  be  cured  only  by 
organization  and  united  action.  Real  improvement  and 
betterment  of  the  conditions  can  be  accomplished  only  by 
the  union  of  many,  and  such  a  union  alone  can  obtain  a 
true  and  sufficient  authority.  With  this  in  mind,  twenty- 
four  rabbis  from  all  parts  of  Germany  and  Switzerland 
met  at  Cassel  on  August  11,  12,  and  13  of  last  year. 


408  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

These  rabbis  recognized  that  the  most  effective  remedy  for 
the  present  conditions  in  Judaism  lies  in  the  creation  of  a 
union  of  the  best-intentioned  and  ablest  elements,  but  that 
such  a  union  was  not  to  be  found  in  the  assembling  and 
the  resolutions  of  a  smaller  or  greater  number  of  rabbis, 
but  must  be  formed  by  the  joining  with  the  rabbis  of  the 
ripe  scholars  of  Judaism  and  especially  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  congregations  themselves.  The  Conference  at 
Cassel  therefore  resolved  unanimously:  (1)  to  convene  a 
synodal  assembly  of  rabbis,  Jewish  scholars,  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  congregations;  (2)  to  choose  committees 
who  are  to  formulate  propositions  for  the  synod.  .  .  . 

"It  is  apparent  that  nothing  further  could  be  done  by 
the  rabbinical  Conference  than  to  determine  of  what  class 
of  men  the  synod  shall  be  composed,  while  all  more  explicit 
measures  concerning  the  future  composition  of  the  synod, 
the  order  of  business,  the  manner  of  voting,  etc.,  had  to  be 
left  to  the  first  synodal  gathering. 

"The  committees  on  the  cult,  the  schools,  the  marriage 
laws  and  other  ritual  matters,  promised  to  publish  their 
reports  sufficiently  long  before  the  meeting  of  the  synod  to 
enable  all  who  expect  to  participate  in  the  meeting  to 
become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  and  to  examine  them. 
Furthermore,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  state  that  by  their 
participation  in  this  first  synod,  the  congregations  as- 
sume no  responsibility  for  its  resolutions  and  results.  The 
object,  above  all  else,  is  to  lay  the  foundation  for  a  large 
and  more  intimate,  but  altogether  free  union  devoid  of 
all  outer  coercion— yes,  for  a  visible  and  more  effective 
organization  and  co-operation. 

"We  therefore  approach  the  Jewish  congregations  in 
general,  and  the  governing  boards  in  particular,  with  the 
request  to  participate  through  one  or  more  representatives 
in  the  synodal  assembly  that  is  to  be  convened  during  the 
summer  of  1869.  We  do  this  with  the  consciousness  that 
the  honorable  board  is  fully  able  to  appreciate  the  full 


THE  LEIPZIU  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  409 

significance,  the  beneficial  bearing,  of  the  proposed  assembly. 
"We  do  not  doubt  that  you  have  no  wish  to  dissociate  your- 
selves from  the  community  of  Israel,  and  that  you  will  con- 
tribute with  pleasure  towards  ensuring  its  well-being  and 
providing  for  its  future.  We  see  no  other  means  whereby, 
in  the  spirit  of  our  religion,  whose  loftiest  principle  is 
brotherhood,  as  well  as  in  the  spirit  of  faith  and  freedom 
of  conscience,  we  can  effectually  prevent  further  ruin.  "We 
can  think  of  no  cogent  reason  for  refusing  to  participate 
in  this  gathering.  Every  view,  every  tendency,  will  have 
the  right  to  express  itself.  Verily  only  that  peace  is  up- 
right, only  that  union  real  which  results  in  mutual  under- 
standing and  agreement,  even  though  these  involve  much 
contention  and  struggle.  All  these  things  we  submit  to 
you  for  consideration  and  beg  you  to  let  any  one  of  the 
undersigned  committee  know  within  four  weeks  whether 
you  will  participate  in  the  synod. 

"May  we  all,  mindful  of  what  we  owe  to  the  glorious 
heritage  of  our  fathers,  the  religion  of  four  thousand  years, 
soon  see  the  work  of  union  take  shape  before  our  eyes  under 
the  providence  of  God!" 

A  large  number  of  congregations  responded  favorably  to 
this  call  for  a  synod,  which  seemed  to  have  struck  a  re- 
sponsive chord;  most  of  the  public  Jewish  organs1  wrote 

^f.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXIII  (1869),  61,  81,  101,  141.  Jewish 
Chronicle,  Jan.,  1869;  Archives  Israelites  (French),  Feb.  1,  1869; 
Educatore  Israelitico  (Italian),  March,  1869;  Occident,  Aug.,  1868. 
Benoit  Levy,  in  advocating  the  synod  in  La  Presse  Israelite,  used  the 
following  passionate  language:  "See  you  not  that  nine-tenths  of 
those  who  are  Bar  Mitzwah  do  not  understand  one  word  of  the  Bible? 
See  you  not  that  the  young  people  do  not  come  to  the  temple  the 
whole  year  round?  See  you  not  that  Hebrew  and  the  Talmud  have 
become  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  rabbis,  and  that  if  this  con- 
tinues no  one  but  they  will  be  able  either  to  understand  or  read 
Hebrew  within  the  next  twenty  or  thirty  years?  And  do  you  not 
desire  that  efforts  be  made  to  ensure  the  education  of  the  young,  to 
shorten  the  prayers,  and  to  change  some  ceremonies  in  order  that  as 
great  a  number  as  possible  be  attracted  to  the  temple  of  our 


410  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

favorably  of  the  plan.  When  the  synod  convened  at  Leip- 
zig on  June  29,  1869,  sixty  congregations  were  represented 
by  eighty-three  delegates.  Many  congregations  that  had 
expressed  their  sympathy  with  the  movement  were  not 
represented.  Most  of  the  delegates  were,  as  was  to  be  ex- 
pected, from  Germany,  although  a  number  of  foreign  coun- 
tries were  represented,  as  e.  g.,  Austria  (through  Joseph 
von  Wertheimer,  Dr.  Maximilian  Engel,  E.  Brach,  Solo- 
mon Sulzer,  and  Simon  Szanto,  all  of  Vienna),  Belgium 
(through  Grand  Rabbi  E.  A.  Astrue  and  E.  Lassen,  of 
Brussels),  Bohemia  (through  George  Feigl,  of  Prague), 
England  (through  Dr.  G.  Gottheil,  of  Manchester),  Hun- 
gary (through  Dr.  L.  Low,  of  Szegedin)',  Galicia  (through 
Abraham  Gumplowicz,  of  Krakau),  Roumania  (through 
Samuel  Marcus,  of  Bucharest),  Switzerland  (through  Dr. 

fathers  ?"  On  the  other  hand,  the  orthodox  organs,  notably  the 
Jeshurun,  was  bitterly  opposed  to  the  synod  because  of  the  source 
whence  the  call  emanated,  viz.,  a  rabbinical  conference  of  a  reform 
tendency.  An  article  by  Graetz  entitled  "Die  Synode"  (The  Synod), 
in  the  Monatsschrift  fur  die  Geschlchte  und  Wissenschaft  des  Juden- 
thums,  XIX  (1869),  171-7,  expressed  the  opinion  of  the  orthodox. 
He  claimed  it  to  have  been  a  mistake  to  have  given  the  reform  of  the 
liturgy  the  first  place  among  the  proceedings  of  the  projected  synod. 
The  object  of  the  synod,  said  he,  must  be  the  healing  of  differences, 
restoration  of  unity,  vivification  of  communal  sentiment.  "I  cannot 
but  feel  that  the  synod  will  be  a  partisan  reform  synod, ' '  he  con- 
tinued, "despite  the  assurance  of  neutrality  on  the  part  of  the 
promoters,  and  therefore  it  will  not  remove  the  split.  The  call  for 
the  synod  should  have  come  neither  from  Germany  nor  America,  for 
there  the  differences  between  the  parties  are  most  pronounced,  but 
from  a  country  and  from  men  who  have  the  confidence  of  all  Jews. 
The  synod  must  avoid  all  words  and  resolutions  that  will  contribute 
to  any  further  disruption  in  Israel."  Or,  in  other  words,  Shulchan 
Aruk  Judaism  or  nothing.  What  was  the  need  of  a  synod  unless  to 
re-interpret  Judaism  to  meet  the  changed  conditions?  A  modern 
synod  must  of  necessity  be  a  reform  synod.  The  moment  that 
there  is  an  iota  of  change  from  any  of  the  regulations  laid  down  in 
the  Shulchan  Aruk  reform  begins;  after  that  it  is  only  a  question 
of  quantity. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  4H 

M.  Kayserling,  of  Endingen-Lengnau ) ,  the  United  States 
(through  Simon  Herman,  of  New  York),  and  the  West 
Indies  (through  Rev.  M.  N.  Nathan,  of  St.  Thomas). 
Among  the  German  representatives  were  many  rabbis  and 
laymen  of  note  as  e.  g.,  (among  the  rabbis),  J.  Aub,  of 
Berlin;  S.  Herxheimer,  of  Bernburg;  L.  Philippson,  of 
Bonn ;  M.  Joel,  of  Breslau ;  L.  Adler,  of  Cassel ;  W.  Landau, 
of  Dresden;  A.  Geiger,  of  Frankf ort-on-the-Main ;  A.  M. 
Goldschmidt,  of  Leipzig;  B.  Wechsler,  of  Oldenburg;  A. 
Wiener,  of  Oppeln;  Tobias  Cohn,  of  Potsdam  and  (among 
the  laity)  Prof.  M.  Lazarus,  of  Berlin;  David  Honigmann, 
of  Breslau ;  Emil  Lehmann  and  Joseph  Bondi,  of  Dresden ; 
Prof.  C.  Munk,  of  Glogau ;  Prof.  Julius  Fiirst  and  Moritz 
Kohner,  of  Leipzig ;  and  Dr.  G.  Josephthal,  of  Nuremberg. 
The  lay  element  was  far  in  the  majority,  there  having  been 
forty-nine  lay  and  thirty-four  rabbinical  delegates,  includ- 
ing religious  educators  and  cantors.  The  synod  was  opened 
with  an  address  by  Dr.  A.  M.  Goldschmidt,  the  rabbi  of 
the  Leipzig  congregation,  who  declared  this  synod  to  be 
the  successor  of  the  Conferences  of  the  fifth  decade.  He 
referred  to  the  reaction  after  1848,  but  declared  that  now 
there  were  signs  of  renewed  life  and  activity  in  the  cause 
of  progress,  and  of  this  the  present  gathering  gave  eloquent 
testimony.  Jews  are  of  many  nationalities,  but  they  are 
all  united  in  their  faith,  which  rises  above  national 
boundaries.  In  the  interest  of  that  faith  and  its  universal 
teachings  they  had  assembled.  He  was  followed  by  Dr. 
L.  Adler,  rabbi  of  Cassel,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
appointed  by  the  rabbinical  Conference  of  Cassel  to  call 
the  synod.  Dr.  Adler  referred  to  the  unfortunate  condi- 
tions in  Jewry,  the  dissensions,  and  the  indifference.  He 
claimed  that  reforms  were  necessary,  and  referred  with 
words  of  scorn  to  "such  as  have  arranged  religious  affairs 
for  their  own  ease  and  convenience;  they  have  thrown  off 
all  allegiance  to  religious  enactments  and  have  reconciled 
life  with  religion  very  easily,  inasmuch  as  they  have  re- 


412  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

nounced  religion  and  enjoy  life.  Let  every  individual 
satisfy  his  conscience  in  this  matter;  but  if  such  persons 
want  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  congregational  councils 
in  order  to  secure  the  reputation  of  belonging  to  the  con- 
forming party,  then  must  we  bend  all  our  energies  to  make 
such  inconsistency  impossible,  for  so  palpable  a  break  be- 
tween official  religion  and  private  practice  can  result  only 
in  detriment  to  true  religion." 

The  synod  organized  by  electing  the  most  celebrated  lay- 
man in  the  gathering,  Prof.  Moritz  Lazarus  as  president, 
Dr.  Abraham  Geiger  and  Joseph  von  Wertheimer  of  Vienna 
vice-presidents,  and  Dr.  M.  Engel,  (physician)  of  Vienna 
and  Dr.  Emil  Lehmann  (advocate)  of  Dresden  as  secretar- 
ies. In  his  address  of  acceptance  Lazarus  pleaded  for 
tolerance ;  that  every  one,  no  matter  what  his  views,  should 
concede  to  others  the  same  rights  of  opinion  which  he  de- 
manded for  himself.  He  urged  further,  that  all  should 
have  in  view  only  the  desire  to  serve  the  truth  and  that 
they  be  open  to  conviction. 

The  synod  being  composed  of  men  of  many  shades  of 
opinion  ranging  from  the  progressive  standpoint  of  Geiger 
and  Lazarus,  to  the  conservative  attitude  of  Joel  and  Lan- 
dau, it  was  meet  that  at  the  very  first  session  after  the 
organization  of  the  body  some  declaration  should  be  made 
of  a  standpoint  on  which  all  agreed.  This  was  done  by  the 
adoption  of  a  statement  of  principles  submitted  by  Ludwig 
Philippson,  which  in  their  final  form  as  concurred  in  by 
the  synod  read  as  follows :  ' '  The  synod  declares  Judaism  to 
be  in  agreement  with  the  principles  of  modern  society  and 
of  the  state  as  these  principles  were  announced  in  Mosaism 
and  developed  in  the  teaching  of  the  prophets,  viz.,  in 
agreement  with  the  principles  of  the  unity  of  mankind,  the 
equality  of  all  before  the  law,  the  equality  of  all  as  far  as 
duties  toward  and  rights  from  the  fatherland  and  the  state 
are  concerned,  as  well  as  the  complete  freedom  of  the  in- 
dividual in  his  religious  conviction  arid  profession. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  413 

"The  Synod  recognizes  in  the  development  and  realiza- 
tion of  these  principles  the  surest  pledges  for  Judaism  and 
its  followers  in  the  present  and  the  future,  and  the  most 
vital  conditions  for  the  unhampered  existence  and  the 
highest  development  of  Judaism. 

"The  Synod  recognizes  in  the  peace  of  all  religions  and 
confessions  among  one  another,  in  their  mutual  respect  and 
rights,  as  well  as  in  the  struggle  for  the  truth— waged, 
however,  only  with  spiritual  weapons  and  along  strictly 
moral  lines— one  of  the  great  aims  of  humanity. 

"The  Synod  recognizes,  therefore,  that  it  is  one  of  the 
essential  tasks  of  Judaism  to  acknowledge,  to  further,  and 
represent  these  principles  and  to  strive  and  work  for  their 
realization. " 

In  the  debate  upon  these  paragraphs  a  number  of  inter- 
esting views  were  given  expression  to  by  Grand  Rabbi 
Astrue,  of  Belgium,  who  spoke  in  French  (it  having  been 
voted  that  each  delegate  speak  in  his  own  language  and 
that  his  remarks  be  then  translated  into  German)  to  the 
effect  that  ' '  Judaism  bases  upon  the  principle  of  the  Divine 
Unity,  which  signifies  human  unity  and  the  equality  of  all 
before  the  civil  as  well  as  the  moral  law ;  Judaism  bases  up- 
on the  liberty  of  the  individual  conscience,  and  from  all  its 
principles,  as  well  as  from  its  history,  there  results  an 
energetic  condemnation  of  all  religious  constraint  and  the 
affirmation  that  mankind  ought  to  march  onward  to  fra- 
ternity and  universal  peace  under  the  banner  of  knowledge 
and  love. ' '  * 

It  will  be  noted  that  not  a  word  is  mentioned  in  this 
statement  of  principles  concerning  the  special  religious 
tendency  of  the  synod.  The  question  of  reform  or  ortho- 
doxy was  purposely  avoided.  The  synod  was  supposed  to 
be  catholic  in  character  and  was  intended  to  furnish  the 
forum  for  the  expression  cf  every  possible  view.  How- 

1  Verhandlungen  der  ersten  israelitischen  Synode  zu  Leipzig,  62. 
Berlin,  1869. 


414  THE  KEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ever,  although,  it  was  the  hope  of  its  promoters  to  engage 
the  interest  and  sympathy  of  all  Jews,  the  entire  absence  of 
representatives  of  extreme  traditionalism  was  very  signifi- 
cant ;  the  orthodox  would  have  none  of  it ;  there  was  not  a 
delegate  from  Russia  or  Poland,  but  one  from  Galicia ;  the 
most  noted  leaders  of  orthodoxy  in  Germany,  especially 
Samson  Raphael  Hirsch,  assumed  a  most  hostile  attitude 
to  the  synod  from  the  very  start.  And  in  truth  they  were 
right  in  their  claim  that  the  synod  was  of  a  reform  char- 
acter. Although  this  was  not  stated  in  so  many  words  in 
formal  resolution  or  declaration,  it  cropped  out  constantly 
in  debate  and  in  the  character  of  the  work  mapped  out  in 
the  program  of  the  meetings.  Thus  immediately  after  the 
adoption  of  the  above  declaration  proposed  by  Philippson, 
Dr.  Wollner  of  Gleiwitz  and  others  proposed  "that  in  con- 
nection with  the  first  resolution  of  Dr.  Ludwig  Philippson 
and  immediately  after  its  dispatch,  the  synod  declare: 

"That  in  the  attempts  to  remedy  the  evils  now  existing 
it  will  be  concerned  first  "of  all  to  keep  intact  the  connection 
with  the  Bible  and  the  traditional  literature."  The  pur- 
pose of  this  resolution  naturally  was  to  commit  the  synod 
to  the  traditional  or  rabbinical  standpoint.  It  was  feared 
by  some  that  this  resolution  if  discussed  at  this  early  stage 
would  prove  the  apple  of  discord  that  would  disrupt  the 
synod.  Wollner  disclaimed  any  such  purpose,  but  de- 
clared that  since  all  congregations  had  been  invited  to  par- 
ticipate, also  such  as  base  upon  the  standpoint  of  rabbinism, 
he  felt  it  proper  to  reassure  such  that  the  synod  would  not 
break  with  the  rabbinical  tradition.  The  issue  was  avoided 
by  the  deferring  of  the  discussion  to  a  later  session.  *  At 
the  last  session  Dr.  Wollner  withdrew  his  resolution,  with 
the  explanation  that  he  had  introduced  it  at  the  beginning 
because  he  wished  the  discussion  thereof  to  make  clear 
whether  the  synod  was  destructive  in  its  tendency,  but  that 
he  was  constrained  to  confess  now  that  the  synod  had  not 

1  Verhandlungen,  67-69. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  415 

abandoned  the  positive  standpoint.1  Its  whole  spirit  was 
to  bring  the  interpretation  of  Judaism  into  harmony  with 
the  modern  outlook.  In  the  debate  on  the  question  of 
Torah  readings  Dr.  Gottheil  of  Manchester  (later  of  New 
York)  received  approbation  for  his  statement:  "If  we  want 
to  reform  from  formalism  into  formalism,  we  will  miss  the 
true  purpose,  we  must  reform  towards  the  living  spirit  ;2 . .  . 
let  us  keep  in  mind  the  true  and  real  need  of  men,  and  not 
always  a  false  piety  towards  antiquity."  The  reform 
character  of  many  of  the  speeches  induced  Joel  to  warn  the 
synod  not  to  discriminate  against  the  orthodox  nor  throw 
down  the  gage  of  battle  to  them.3  Aub  of  Berlin  found 
the  object  of  the  synod  indicated  in  the  old  prohibition  not 
to  touch  the  dead  lest  it  make  unclean :  ' '  This  is  a  warning 

1  Verhandlungen,  203.  This  remark  indicates  the  mistake  so  frequently 
made  of  confounding  reform  with  negativism.  True  reform  is  positive. 
Of  course  it  must  first  clear  the  ground  of  abuses  that  have  grown 
up  in  the  religious  field,  but  it  does  not  rest  here;  it  has  a  positive 
interpretation  of  the  religious  content.  Eeform  in  Judaism  rests  as 
truly  on  a  positive  historical  basis  as  does  rabbinism;  the  accusation 
that  it  scouts  tradition  is  unjust.  True,  it  discredits  certain  tradi- 
tions, but  it  builds  upon  the  body  of  Jewish  tradition  as  a  developing 
force.  In  this  sense  the  synod  was  of  a  reform  tendency. 

3  Ibid.,  133. 

8  Ibid.,  101,  151.  Joel,  deep  and  brilliant  scholar  though  he  was, 
was  an  out  and  out  representative  of  the  Breslau  school,  which 
demands  absolute  fidelity  to  rabbinical  tradition  in  practice,  although 
conniving  at  the  broadest  freedom  in  thought.  Thus  a  man  may  dis- 
believe in  the  restoration  of  sacrifices,  but  yet  the  prayers  for  this 
must  be  retained  in  the  liturgy,  because  the  tradition  must  not  be 
tampered  with.  Shortly  before  the  synod  met  a  heated  controversy 
had  taken  place  between  Joel  and  Geiger  on  this  very  question  of  the 
liturgy.  Joel,  in  his  Zur  Orientirung  in  der  Cultusfrage  (1867),  had 
broken  a  lance  for  the  orthodox  prayer-book,  and  had  argued  for 
the  retention  of  the  prayer  for  the  restoration  of  sacrifices,  the 
bodily  resurrection  and  the  personal  Messiah.  Geiger  answered  him 
in  a  lengthy  critique  ' '  Etwas  iiber  Glauben  und  Beten,  zu  Schutz  und 
Trutz"  (Jiidische  ZeitscJirift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  VII, 
1-59).  Joel  pleaded  for  unity  in  Israel  even  at  the  cost  of  individual 
conviction.  Geiger  contended  for  the  right  of  progressive  thought. 


416  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

for  the  synod  not  to  make  itself  unclean  by  touching  the 
dead,  but  to  bury  this  quietly.  We  wish  to  support  life 
and,  while  remembering  the  dead,  to  purify  what  still  has 
life  and  vitality."  In  the  effort  to  satisfy  the  various 
views  represented  in  the  synod,  there  had  been  rather  much 
casuistry  in  the  proceedings;  this  led  Dr.  Wiener  of 
Oppeln1  to  demand,  when  a  proposition  of  a  distinctly  re- 
form character  was  before  the  synod  that  it  be  adopted  * '  in 
order  that  the  delegates  who  constitute  the  progressive  ele- 
ment receive  consideration,  there  having  been  so  much 
subtlety  in  the  settling  of  many  other  points."2  But  the 
reform  tendency  of  the  synod  found  clearest  expression  in 
the  superb  address  with  which  the  president  closed  the 
Conference,  in  the  course  whereof  he  said : ' '  There  is  much 
in  the  synagogue  that  requires  reform,  therefore  we  devoted 
ourselves  here  to  the  consideration  of  these  reforms  within 
the  synagogue.  Opponents  will  ask,  What  have  they 
abolished  again,  what  will  they  put  in  its  place?  Gentle- 
men, certainly  we  wish  to  abolish;  we  wish  to  abolish  first 
of  all,  indifference ;  we  wish  to  abolish— to  abolish,  I  say— 
ignorance.  But  this  is  not  sufficient ;  we  need  also  reform. 
We  honor  the  old ;  but  the  true  honoring  of  the  old  consents 
in  our  nursing  it,  not  in  our  permitting  it  to  decay.  A 
wine  dresser  knows  that  if  his  vine  is  to  bring  forth  fruit, 
much  and  good  fruit,  he  must  cut  away  the  rank  sprigs  of 

1  Dr.  A.  Wiener,  of  Oppeln,  who  is  still  living  at  a  ripe  old  age, 
handed  in  to  the  synod  an  elaborate  dissertation  on  the  dietary  laws 
in  reference  to  which,  however,  no  action  was  taken.  Twenty-six 
years  later  he  published  a  work  on  this  same  subject  which  was  un- 
doubtedly the  outcome  of  these  early  studies.  This  work  is  the  best 
and  most  comprehensive  study  of  the  dietary  laws  from  the  historical, 
critical  and  reform  standpoint  that  we  have;  it  is  entitled  Die 
jiidischen  Speisegesetze  nach  ihren  verscMedenen  Gesichtspurikte  zum 
ersten  Male  wlssenschaftlich-methodisc'li  geordnet  und  Tcritish  un- 
tersucht.  Breslau,  1895;  see  also  C.  G.  Montefiore's  review  of  the 
work,  J.  Q.  E.,  VIII,  392-413. 

3  Verhandlungen,  167. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  417 

the  vine  lest  it  shoot  into  wood.  But  he  knows  also  that  if 
he  cuts  away  all  twigs  the  stem  withers."1  If  anything, 
this  reform  spirit  found  even  stronger  and  more  frequent 
expression  at  the  Augsburg  synod.  Thus  in  the  discussion 
on  the  reform  of  the  marriage  laws,  Dr.  Leopold  Low  of 
Szegedin,  in  condemning  the  timorous  attitude  of  a  previous 
speaker,  advised  the  synod :  ' '  I  beg  of  you  not  to  fear  the 
opposition  of  the  orthodox,  for  the  orthodox  party  will 
hesitate  to  shoot  the  arrows  of  defamation  from  fear  that 
these  arrows  might  hit  many  a  one  whom  it  counts  among 
its  protectors,  advocates  and  defenders."2  The  seasoned 
reformer,  Dr.  B.  Wechsler  of  Oldenburg,  who  had  been  a 
member  of  the  rabbinical  Conferences  of  the  fifth  decade, 
gave  voice  to  the  convictions  of  a  lifetime  when  he  declared 
in  the  course  of  his  remarks  on  the  necessity  of  abolishing 
the  chalitza  ceremony  "we  may  and  must  say  that  we  have 
the  right  and  the  power  to  abrogate  an  institution  which  has 
no  significance  to-day  and  in  its  form  and  content  is  no 
longer  worthy  of  our  age  and  of  ourselves."3  Similarly 
in  a  discussion  on  the  proposition  to  revise  the  Shulchan 
Aruk4  Dr.  Wassermann  laid  down  the  general  proposition 
"The  worst  demoralization  of  nations  and  individuals; 
yes,  let  me  add,  of  congregations,  arises  from  the  circum- 
stance that  they  habituate  themselves  to  the  contradiction 
between  their  theoretical  convictions  and  their  practical 
existence  and  mode  of  life.  This  contradiction  between  the- 
oretical conviction  and  the  practical  mode  of  life  should 
and  must  be  removed."5  Again,  in  the  Sabbath  discus- 
sion, Dr.  A.  "Wiener  stated  unqualifiedly,  "We  do  not 
desire  to  hold  fast  to  all  old  petrified  formulae,  but  to  pre- 

1  Verhandlungen,  212. 

2  Verhandlungen  der  zweiten  israelitischen  Synode  zu  Augsburg,  71. 
8  Ibid.,  134. 

4  See  below  where  this  interesting  proposal  is  discussed  at  length. 
B  Verhandlungen  der  zweiten  israelitischen  Synode,  160.     See  also 
Dr.  Nehemias  Briill's  bold  declaration,  ibid.,  166. 
27 


418  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

serve  the  living  element"1  and  finally  a  strong  utterance 
of  Geiger  in  the  course  of  that  same  discussion  must  be 
cited :  ' '  We  cannot  take  cognizance  in  all  their  details  of 
the  words  of  ancient  teachers— men,  it  is  true,  of  the  deep- 
est insight ;  men  whose  memory  we  revere,  but  who  lived  in 
their  age  and  not  in  ours ;  in  an  age  of  altogether  different 
views,  circumstances  and  conditions."2 

On  the  important  question  as  to  the  character  of  the 
synod,  opinions  were  divided.  Philippson  contended,  as  he 
had  twenty-five  years  previously  in  regard  to  the  rabbinical 
Conferences,3  that  the  synod  must  be  of  a  practical  char- 
acter ;  not  theoretical  discussions,  but  practical  suggestions 
and  resolutions,  should  be  its  main  feature.4  Geiger  held 
quite  the  opposite  view :  ' '  The  purpose  of  our  gathering  is 
to  encourage,  enhearten  and  enlighten  the  congregations 
and  not  to  take  in  hand  practical  undertakings."5  The 
president  took  an  intermediate  position  when  he  de- 
clared that  the  synod  was  of  a  mixed  nature,  being  both 
theoretical  and  practical;  that  it  was  an  assembly  in  part 
scientific  and  in  part  resolutatory  ;6  the  actual  work  of 
the  synod  substantiated  this  view.  As  to  the  authority  of 
the  synod,  always  the  most  important  question  in  a  gather- 
ing of  this  kind,  there  was  no  thought  that  the  synod  should 
have  the  power  to  loose  or  to  bind,  to  exercise  ecclesiastical 
control,  to  coerce  or  to  excommunicate ;  its  sole  authority 
was  to  arise  from  the  confidence  of  the  people.  It  was  not 
to  gain  its  authority  by  the  conventional  methods  of 
hierarchical  assumption,  but  by  arousing  conviction. 
Being  a  body  of  notables  in  whom  the  people  trusted,  its 
deliverances  were  to  gain  authority  simply  through  this  and 
not  by  any  external  measures  or  force  of  any  kind.  "All 
reform  in  Judaism  is  obligated  to  win  the  people,  to  plant 

1  Verhandlungen  der  zweiten  israelitischen  Synode,  181. 

2  Ibid.,  189.  3  Supra,  220. 

*  Verhandlungen  der  ersten  israelitischen  Synode,  75. 
5  Ibid.,  78.  'Ibid.,  54. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  419 

convictions.  There  is  no  authority,  no  one  possesses  it,  nor 
may  any  one  be  permitted  to  possess  it.  We  do  not  speak 
of  that  small  party  which  declares  that  there  is  an  absolute 
authority,  namely,  the  written  word,  which  one  need  only 
read  in  order  to  know  what  Judaism  is  and  what  consti- 
tutes Judaism;  this  requires  no  consultation,  no  speech, 
merely  dumb  acquiescence ;  it  requires  merely  that  one  read 
and  accept  what  is  printed  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk.  .  .  . 
Our  object  must  be  to  convince ;  let  us  aim  here  in  the  synod 
to  win  through  the  thoughts  themselves  those  who  wish  to 
accept  our  standpoint. ' ' *  The  synod,  then,  was,  in  the 
view  of  its  most  distinguished  participants,  to  be  an  organ 
for  the  formation  of  Jewish  opinions  on  important  ques- 
tions, a  gathering  of  enlightened  thinkers  who  were  to 
grapple  with  the  perplexing  questions  that  were  distracting 
Jewry— not  a  heresy-hunting  theological  police  nor  an 
ecclesiastical  court  with  all  its  attendant  evils. 

With  this  aim  in  view,  the  synod  addressed  itself  to  the 
consideration  of  a  number  of  important  issues  in  Jewish 
life,  the  most  salient  points  in  the  discussions,  delibera- 
tions, and  decisions  of  which  follow. 

Religious  Education.— From  the  time  that  Jewish  chil- 
dren had  begun  to  attend  the  common  schools  the  question 
of  their  religious  instruction  had  assumed  a  serious  aspect. 
In  ghetto  days,  the  Jewish  child  had  received  all  its  in- 
struction in  the  cheder,  and  this  instruction  had  been  alto- 
gether in  Hebrew  branches.  There  was  no  such  thing  as  a 
distinction  between  secular  and  religious  education.  Nec- 
essarily when  Jewish  children  attended  schools  in  common 
with  children  of  other  faiths,  the  matter  of  religious  in- 
struction became  acute.  Two  courses  were  now  possible— 
either  that  hours  should  be  set  aside  in  the  curriculum  of  the 
day  school  when  religious  instruction  should  be  imparted 
by  teachers  of  the  various  faiths  to  the  children  of  these 

1  Lazarus '  opening  address  at  the  Augsburg  synod  Verhandlungen 
der  zweiten  israelitischen  Synode,  13,  14. 


420      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

faiths,  or  that  special  religious  schools  should  be  instituted 
whereat  the  religious  education  could  be  received.  As  a 
matter  of  course  where  Jewish  children  attended  Jewish 
day  schools  the  problem  did  not  arise.  Even  to  this  day 
the  problem  of  the  religious  education  of  the  young  is  one 
of  the  most  serious  in  Jewish  life.  Where  the  public  school 
is  altogether  secularized,  as  is  the  case  in  the  United  States, 
individual  congregations  must  make  provision  for  the  relig- 
ious instruction  of  the  children;  where  Christian  religious 
influences  prevail  in  schools,  as  is  the  case  in  a  number  of 
European  countries,  Jewish  societies  and  congregations 
have  largely  succeeded  in  having  regular  hours  indicated 
in  the  curriculum  in  which  religious  instruction  is  imparted 
to  Jewish  children  by  a  teacher  of  their  faith. 1  The  first 
deliverance  by  any  constituted  body  on  this  whole  subject 
of  religious  education  was  made  by  the  Leipzig  synod.  Dr. 
S.  Herxheimer  of  Bernburg,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  religious  education  that  had  been  appointed  by  the 
Cassel  Conference  to  prepare  a  report  to  be  submitted  to 
the  synod,  presented  an  exhaustive  paper  on  the  subject2 
of  religious  instruction,  closing  with  a  number  of  recom- 
mendations ;  among  others,  that  every  congregation  should 
make  attendance  at  the  religious  school  compulsory  for 
every  child  unless  the  parents  of  the  child  can  prove  that 
the  child  receives  such  instruction  from  a  qualified  teacher ; 
that,  to  ensure  unity  in  religious  instruction,  a  Union  Book 
for  Religious  Instruction  be  introduced  in  all  congrega- 
tions, and  that  the  examination  in  religion  and  confirma- 
tion constitute  the  ceremony  of  graduation  from  the  relig- 
ious school  at  an  age  ranging  between  the  thirteenth  and 
sixteenth  year.  In  the  discussion  which  ensued,  a  number 

1  For  the  present  status  of  Jewish  religious  education  in  various 
lands  see  the  article  "Sabbath  Schools"  by  the  author  in  the  Jewish 
Encyclopaedia,  X. 

2  VerTiandlungen  der  ersten  isratlitischen  Synode,  Arihang,  I,  218- 
239, 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  421 

of  moot  points  were  discussed,  such  as  the  possibility  of  a 
union  religious  text-book ;  here  two  distinct  views  appeared, 
the  one  suggested  by  Herxheimer  and  the  other  championed 
by  Geiger,  who  declared  that  owing  to  the  differences  in 
opinions  among  various  congregations  a  Union  Catechism 
was  an  impossibility,  and  that  for  the  majority  to  attempt 
to  foist  such  a  book  even  upon  the  smallest  dissenting 
minority  would  be  disastrous.  It  must  always  be  left  to 
the  free  choice  of  any  school  to  adopt  or  reject  such  a  book. 
Another  interesting  discussion  turned  upon  the  question  of 
Biblical  criticism;  were  the  Bible  stories  and  incidents  to 
be  taught  literally,  or  was  the  critical  method  to  be  applied  ? 
This  was  precipitated  by  the  resolution  offered  by  Dr. 
Szanto,  of  Vienna,  who  called  upon  the  synod  to  declare 
that  "the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Jewish  creed 
are  not  antagonized  by  a  teacher  who  explains  all  the 
natural  and  historical  events  narrated  in  Sacred  Scriptures 
in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  sciences,  so  long  as 
he  does  not  deny  the  fact  itself,  and  that  a  teacher  should 
not  be  removed  from  his  position  who  explains  a  miracle 
naturally,  provided  he  casts  no  doubt  upon  the  veracity  of 
the  Bible. ' '  The  members  of  the  synod  were  not  prepared 
to  assume  so  outspoken  an  attitude  but,  with  four  excep- 
tions, declared  without  further  debate  against  the  critical 
method  in  the  teaching  of  the  Bible.  The  resolutions  on 
the  subject  of  religious  education  as  formally  adopted  by 
the  synod  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  Assembly  recommends  most  urgently  to  the  con- 
gregations the  establishment  and  support  of  good  religious 
schools  for  the  youth  of  both  sexes. 

2.  The  Assembly  recognizes  it  to  be  the  task  of  the  con- 
gregations, yes,  of  all  the  Jews  of  each  and  every  state,  to 
put  forth  every  effort  to  have  Judaism  obtain  its  rights  in 
the  higher  institutions  of  learning  which  are  intended  for 
all  confessions  by  having  it  made  possible  for  the  Jewish 
students  to  receive  there  higher  religious  instruction. 


422  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

3.  The  Assembly  hails  with  joy  the  tendency  of  our  age 
which  strives  for  the  general  establishment  of  non-sectarian 
schools;  it  recognizes  in  this  tendency  no  danger  for  Juda- 
ism, but  considers  it  all  the  more  important  that  in  addition 
to  these  non-sectarian  schools  there  should  be  institutions 
which  inculcate  in  the  rising  generation  the  knowledge  of 
and  love  for  their  inherited  faith. 

4.  The  Assembly  recognizes  as  inalienable  portions  of 
religious  education,  not  only  the  usual  instruction  in  Bib- 
lical history  and  the  compilation  of  the  deeply  ingrained 
religious  principles,  but  also  the  firm  grounding  in  the  con- 
tent of  all  the  Biblical  books,  the  cultivation  of  the  Hebrew 
language  as  the  language  in  which  these  books  are  written, 
in  which  the  religious  idea  finds  its  uniquely  deep  and  in- 
tense expression,  the  language  which  has  been  and  should 
remain  the  fresh  spiritual  source  of  all  succeeding  centuries 
and  likewise  the  firm  spiritual  bond  between  all  parts  of 
Jewry.     Especial    stress,    however,   should    be    laid    upon 
acquainting  the  young  with  the  whole  Jewish  history,  in- 
cluding the  post-Biblical,  as  the  richest  source  for  confirma- 
tion in  the  faith,  and  the  fortifying  of  the  religious  senti- 
ment. 

5.  The  Assembly  declares  that  religious  instruction  in 
the  school  must  avoid  the  critical  method ;  the  idealistic  out- 
look of  the  young  should  not  be  blurred  by  the  suggestion  of 
doubts.     For  this  very  reason,  however,  the  Assembly  ex- 
pects our  teachers  to  be  wisely  discreet  in  not  ignoring  the 
results  of  science,  but  to  anticipate  and  prevent  a  conflict 
which  may  arise  later  in  the  soul  of  our  growing  youth  be- 
tween religion  and  the  commonly  accepted  scientific  point 
of  view. 

6.  The  Assembly  recognizes  the  need  of  special  training 
schools  for  Jewish  teachers,  notably  religious  teachers.     It 
appreciates  the  existing  worthy  institutions  of  this  char- 
acter and  desires  eagerly  their  increase.     But  it  does  not 

fail  to  recognize  the  great  difficulties  in  the  way  of  estab- 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  423 

lishing  a  sufficient  number  of  such  seminaries.  Therefore, 
the  Assembly  considers  it  an  urgent  duty  to  strive  towards 
having  capable  Jews  who  understand  how  to  train  Jewish 
religious  instructors  in  their  future  profession  appointed 
at  the  general  public  seminaries  because  of  their  specific 
sectarian  character. 

7.  Finally,  the  Assembly  regards  the  establishment  of 
one  or  more  higher  institutions  of  learning  for  the  science 
of  Judaism  (theological  faculty)  as  the  highest  task  in  the 
interest  of  the  scientific  knowledge  of  Judaism,  and  con- 
siders it  to  be  one  of  its  essential  objects  to  arouse  general 
interest  in  this  matter.  The  Assembly  declares  that  the 
significance  of  such  institutions  consists  primarily  in  their 
becoming  the  nurseries  of  free  scientific  knowledge  and  that 
their  mission  is  to  strengthen  Judaism  spiritually  and  to 
secure,  for  it  its  justified  influence  upon  general  spiritual 
development.  The  Assembly  therefore  names  a  committee 
which  is  to  unite  with  all  efforts  already  put  forth  for  the 
establishment  of  such  higher  institutions  of  learning. 

The  committee  appointed  in  accordance  with  this  resolu- 
tion consisted  of  Philippson,  Geiger,  Astrue,  Joel,  and 
Lazarus.  To  this  committee  was  referred  the  resolution 
of  Dr.  Low  that  a  curriculum  be  prepared  for  such  insti- 
tutions of  learning,  in  which  especial  attention  be  paid  to 
introducing  a  proper  method  for  instruction  in  the  Tal- 
mud. The  synod  endorsed  the  suggestion  of  Grand  Rabbi 
Astrue  of  the  advisability  of  an  international  union  of  the 
various  higher  institutions  of  Jewish  learning  (Paris, 
Padua,  Breslau),  but  concluded  that  the  initiative  for  such 
union  must  come  from  the  institutions  themselves. 1  Al- 
ready at  this  time  plans  were  under  way  for  the  founda- 
tion of  a  theological  seminary  of  a  progressive  character  at 
Berlin. 2  These  plans  found  fulfillment  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Hochschule  (now  Lehranstalt}  fur  die  Wissen- 
scliaft  des  Judenthums  in  1872. 

1  VerTiandlviigen,  105,  106. 

3  See  Lazarus '  statement,  ibid.,  108. 


424      THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Liturgy.— The  question  of  the  reform  of  the  Prayer-Book 
and  all  matters  germane  thereto  had  been  prominently  be- 
fore the  Jewish  people  ever  since  the  inception  of  the  re- 
form movement,  as  has  appeared  abundantly  throughout 
these  pages.  All  the  agitation  on  the  subject  had  not  re- 
sulted in  any  united  action.  The  Conferences  of  Bruns- 
wick, Frankfort,  and  Breslau  had  made  a  number  of  pro- 
nouncements, but  these  had  remained  largely  paper  reso- 
lutions. Therefore  it  must  not  cause  surprise  that  the 
synod,  too,  addressed  itself  to  this  subject.  The  prelimi- 
nary Conference  at  Cassel  had  appointed  a  commission  that 
was  to  prepare  a  report  on  the  liturgy  for  consideration  by 
the  synod.1  At  that  Conference  Dr.  Ludwig  Philippson 
had  proposed  thirty  points  for  discussion  and  decision.  In 
the  meantime  Dr.  Geiger  had  formulated  a  number  of 
theses  for  the  deliberations  of  the  synod  on  this  subject.2 
When  the  matter  came  before  the  gathering  for  consider- 
ation, the  report  prepared  by  the  commission  appointed  at 
Cassel,  consisting  of  Drs.  L.  Adler,  L.  Philippson,  and  M. 
Joel,3  formed  the  basis  of  the  discussions.  At  the  very 
outset  of  the  debate,  the  old  question  as  to  whether  the 
principles  or  practical  points  should  receive  prime  atten- 
tion, divided  the  members.  Geiger  claimed  that  the  synod 
should  lay  down  the  general  principles  and  leave  it  to  indi- 
vidual congregations  to  make  the  special  applications  of 
these  principles  to  such  practical  reforms  as  they  deemed 
necessary.4  Philippson,  on  the  other  hand,  held  that  the 
principles  had  been  discussed  for  half  a  century,  and  that  it 
was  supremely  necessary  for  the  synod  to  express  itself  on 
such  practical  and  special  questions  as  were  troubling  the 
congregations.5  L.  Adler  agreed  with  him,  calling  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  present  gathering  was  a  synod  and 
not  a  rabbinical  Conference ;  a  rabbinical  Conference  was 

1  Supra,  405. 

*J.  Z.  W.  L.,  VII,  161-167.  Verhandlungen  der  ersten  Synode, 
256. 

'Ibid.,  243-246.  4  Ibid.,  114.  'Ibid.,  113. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  425 

expected  to  discuss  theoretical  questions  and  principles;  a 
synod  to  make  practical  application  of  these  principles. 
Aub  spoke  in  a  similar  vein,  and  used  the  significant  words : 
"Of  all  things,  posit  no  principles,  manufacture  no  creed. 
The  safety  and  guaranty  of  our  religion  depend  upon 
this  very  fact  that  its  professors  never  quarreled  about 
or  had  differences  concerning  articles  of  faith.  The 
Bible  .is  our  basis,  not  any  individual  synod."1  Geiger 
stood  almost  alone  in  his  contention  that  the  principles  or 
doctrines  which  were  to  find  expression  in  the  prayers 
should  first  be  decided  upon.  The  Assembly  determined 
to  devote  itself  to  the  consideration  of  those  practical  issues 
in  the  public  service  which  the  commission  had  incorporated 
in  its  report.  Inasmuch  as  the  debate  on  the  various  points 
brought  before  the  synod  elicited  no  arguments  that  had 
not  been  adduced  in  the  remarkable  discussions  on  the 
Prayer-Book  and  the  liturgy  in  general  at  the  Frankfort 
Conference,  which  discussions  have  been  reproduced  at 
length  in  a  former  chapter,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  set 
down  here  anything  more  than  the  resolutions  adopted  by 
the  members  of  the  Synod. 

1  Verhandlungen,  116.  Aub's  remarks  derive  further  interest  from 
the  fact  that  reference  is  made  in  them  to  a  Union  Prayer-Book,  al- 
though disparagingly.  The  speaker  claimed  that  there  were  so  many 
differences,  even  among  congregations  that  desired  a  reform  of  the  old 
prayer-book,  that  it  would  be  a  long  time  ere  they  could  even  think 
of  the  proposition  of  producing  one  prayer-book  for  all.  "As  many 
cities,  so  many  altars,  gentlemen,  and  now  we  have  even  more  altars 
than  cities."  This  remark  referred  to  the  many  individual  prayer- 
books  that  had  been  prepared  by  individual  rabbis  or  for  individual 
congregations.  This  was  not  the  case  in  Europe  alone,  but  also  in 
America.  The  manufacture  of  these  individual  prayer-books  became 
the  most  notorious  signal  of  the  religious  anarchy  in  modern  Israel. 
The  evil  has  been  checked  finally,  if  not  in  Europe,  at  least  in  the 
United  States,  by  the  appearance  of  the  Union  Prayer-Book,  prepared 
by  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Kabbis,  which  is  in  use  by  234 
congregations  (1906),  the  nearest  approach  to  a  book  of  common 
prayer  that  the  Jewish  community  has  had  since  the  pre-reform  days. 


426  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Sabbath  Morning  Service.— All  readings  from  the  Torah 
are  to  be  in  Hebrew.  The  weekly  portions  on  Sabbath 
morning  and  afternoon  are  to  be  read  in  accordance  with 
the  one-year  cycle.1  On  the  afternoon  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment Lev.  xix.  1-23,  shall  be  read  in  place  of  Lev.  xviii. 2 
In  reading  the  Torah,  the  traditional  cantillation  (trop)  is 
to  be  displaced  by  intelligible  reading. 3 

The  Haftarot  are  to  be  read  in  the  vernacular.  Por- 
tions from  Hagiographa  may  also  be  used  for  this  purpose.4 
The  Tefillah  (eighteen  benedictions)  is  to  be  read  only  once 
in  each  portion  of  the  service. 5 

In  the  recasting  of  traditional  prayers  and  in  the  new 
prayers  all  expressions  which  savor  of  bitterness  or  revenge 
are  to  be  avoided.  All  petitions  which  are  not  of  a  con- 
fessional character  are  to  be  so  framed  as  to  include  all 
mankind  and  all  prayers  of  thanksgiving  for  the  spiritual 
benefactions  of  God  to  Israel,  such  as  the  election  of  Israel, 
the  Sabbath,  etc.,  are  to  be  expressed  in  a  positive  manner, 
and  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  offend  our  brethren  of  other 
faiths.  On  the  other  hand,  especial  stress  is  to  be  laid  on 
the  following  points,  as  is  in  truth  already  the  case  in  a 
number  of  prayers,  viz.,  the  religious  mission  of  Israel,  the 
providential  guidance  of  Israel,  the  great  principles  of 
Judaism,  e.  g.,  progressive  development,  the  eventual  uni- 
versal rule  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  justice  and  peace  (the 
Messianic  age)  love  of  the  neighbor,  etc.,  etc.8 

1  VerTiandlungen,  145.  A  number  of  congregations  had  introduced 
the  triennial  cycle  as  recommended  by  the  Frankfort  Conference. 
In  their  name  Geiger  and  others  entered  a  protest  against  this  resolu- 
tion which  had  been  adopted  by  a  majority  of  one.  The  majority 
at  a  later  session  made  declaration  that  their  action  was  not  to  be 
understood  as  deprecating  the  triennial  cycle,  but  that  both  customs 
are  in  accord  with  Jewish  practice.  Verhandlungen,  171,  note. 

2Verhandlungen,  126,  149.  'Ibid.,  153-4.  *  IMd.,  170. 

5  Ibid.,  163.  Much  disorder  was  caused  by  the  repetition  in 
Shacharit  (the  morning  service)  and  Mussaf  (the  additional  service) 
of  the  eighteen  benedictions,  notably  by  the  so-called  lachash  or 
silent  prayer  which  was  never  silent  but  a  mumbling. 

°Ibid.,  171-74,  186. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  427 

The  Three  High  Feasts.— The  services  on  the  holidays 
are  to  be  similar  to  the  Sabbath  services,  with  the  addition 
of  the  festival  Tefillah,1  the  Hallel2  (in  Hebrew  or  the 
vernacular  according  to  the  need  of  the  congregation)  the 
assigned  Torah-lection,  the  special  haftara  and  songs  appro- 
priate to  the  holiday.3 

All  piyyutim,  whether  for  Sabbath  or  holidays,  are  to  be 
abolished.  On  holidays  a  meditation  on  the  special  signifi- 
cance of  the  holiday  is  to  be  inserted  between  the  Tefillah 
and  Hallel*  The  petition  for  geshem  and  tal5  is  to  be  re- 
placed by  a  German  prayer.  The  hoshanahs*  are  to  be  re- 
tained in  Hebrew  for  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  and  to  be 
shortened  for  Hoshana  Rabba.7 

The  Morning  Service  of  Rosh  Hashanah.—On  Rosh 
Hashanah  a  number  of  especially  lofty  piyyutim  in  Hebrew 
and  meditations  in  the  vernacular  are  to  be  added  in  order 
to  bring  the  high  significance  of  this  holiday  home  to  the 
consciousness  of  the  individual.8 

Yom  Kippur.—A  meditation  in  the  vernacular  and  pen- 
itential prayers  in  Hebrew  or  the  vernacular  are  to  be  in- 
troduced in  each  of  the  four  services  on  Tom  Kippur  as 
time  permits.9 

The  impressive  Hazkorat  Neshamot  (Memorial  Serv- 
ice for  the  Dead)10  shall  take  place  between  Shaeharit  and 

1  On  the  three  high  feasts  benedictions  appropriate  to  the  day  were 
inserted  in  the  tefilldh. 

2  Ps.  113-118.  3  Verhandlungen,  177.  4  Ibid.,  178. 

5  The  special  prayer  for  rain. 

6  Supplications    characterized   by    the    formula    Hoshana    (KJ  ytrn) 
"Save,  we  beseech  Thee." 

7  The  seventh  day  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

8  VerTiandlungen,  179.  •  Ibid.,  179-80. 

10  The  beautiful  custom  of  holding  a  memorial  service  for  the  dead 
dates  far  back  and  was  held  on  various  holidays.  At  present,  how- 
ever, particularly  in  reform  congregations,  the  custom  is  quite  uni- 
versal of  holding  this  service  on  the  Day  of  Atonement.  See  Jewish, 
Encyclopaedia,  art.  Memorial  Service. 


428  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Mussaf  or  between  Mussaf  and  Mincha.1  The  aboda2  is 
to  be  retained,  but  the  intermediate  sections  are  to  be  re- 
cast and  shortened.3 

General.— Unison  congregational  singing  is  recom- 
mended. Chorus  singing  and  other  musical  performances 
are  in  place  only  when  the  singing  material  is  adequate; 
all  profane  music  is  to  be  banished  from  the  synagogue. 

The  introduction  of  the  organ  in  the  synagogue  is  com- 
mendable and  there  is  no  religious  objection  to  its  use  on 
Sabbath  and  holidays. 

A  resolution  to  abolish  the  custom  of  calling  members  of 
the  congregation  to  the  Torah  (Aufrufen)  was  defeated 
as  was  also  Geiger's  motion  that  the  portions  assigned  for 
reading  on  the  so-called  Sabbaths  Parah  and  Zakor  be 
dispensed  with.4 

Circumcision.— Dr.  Maximilian  Engel,  of  Vienna,  a 
physician,  and  Prof.  Julius  Fiirst,  of  Leipzig,  offered  reso- 
lutions on  the  subject  of  circumcision.  Dr.  Engel  desired 
the  reference  to  a  committee  for  consideration  and  report 
to  the  synod  of  the  following  two  questions : 

11  (a)  Is  a  child  born  of  a  Jewish  mother  which  for  what- 
ever reason  has  not  been  circumcised  to  be  considered  a 
Jew  in  the  light  of  the  rules  now  existing  and  considered 
binding  for  the  Jew,  and  (6)  How  in  case  the  first  question 
is  answered  in  the  affirmative  is  such  an  individual  to  be 
treated  subjectively  as  well  as  objectively  in  ritual  matters 
in  view  of  the  rules  indicated  above?" 

Professor  Fiirst 's  resolution  was  to  the  effect  that  "the 
synod  should  declare,  that  according  to  the  express  dictum 

1  Verhandlungen,  180. 

2  The  impressive  portion  of  the  afternoon  service  on   the  Day  of 
Atonement  beginning  with  Alenu  I'shabeach. 

3  Verhandlungen,  181. 

4  The  Sabbath  before  the  Feast  of  Purim  was  known  as  Sabbath 
Zakor,  taking  its  name  from  the  Pentateuehal  section  read  on  that 
day,  Deut.  xxv.  17-19;  similarly  Sabbath  Parah  took  its  name  from 
the  Pentateuehal  section,  Numb.  xix. 


£j 

THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  429 

of 'the  Talmud,  every  child  born  of  Jewish  parents  belongs 
to  the  Jewish  community  by  the  very  fact  of  its  birth  and 
not  primarily  by  virtue  of  circumcision.  Therefore  a  boy 
born  of  Jewish  parents  is  to  be  registered  as  a  Jew  without 
any  further  consideration  as  to  whether  he  is  circumcised 
or  not.  The  neglect  on  the  father's  part  to  have  his  child 
circumcised  is  placed  in  the  same  category  with  all  other 
commands,  the  neglect  of  which  entails  the  punishment  of 
Karet  and  is  beyond  all  human  jurisdiction.  One  that  is 
uncircumcised  may  not  be  slighted  either  in  the  deposition 
of  the  oath  or  in  being  called  to  the  Torah"  (Aufrufen). 

As  the  reasons  for  submitting  the  two  questions  to  the 
Synod  Dr.  Engel  called  attention  to  several  cases  in  Vienna 
and  Prague  which  had  caused  much  confusion.  Jewish 
fathers  were  unwilling  to  circumcise  their  children,  but 
were  desirous  of  rearing  them  as  Jews.  They  demanded 
the  registration  of  the  children  as  such.  The  rabbis  re- 
fused. In  Vienna  the  father  had  appealed  to  the  civic 
authorities,  who  ordered  the  rabbi  to  enter  the  child 's  name 
on  the  registry.  In  Prague  a  similar  order  was  given  with 
the  supplementary  suggestion,  however,  that  the  rabbi  could 
keep  a  private  record  in  which  he  could  indicate  whether 
the  child  was  circumcised  or  not.  The  next  step  was  taken 
by  the  directorate  of  the  Viennese  Jewish  community  who 
informed  the  magistrate  of  the  city  that  they  would  enter 
the  order  among  the  legislative  acts,  but  would  not  obey 
it.  They  claimed  that  the  decision  in  the  matter  lay  with 
the  religious  authorities  of  the  Jews ;  they  therefore  called 
upon  the  rabbis  of  the  city  to  meet  with  them  for  consul- 
tation. After  lengthy  debate,  they  decided  that  such  a 
child  must  be  considered  a  Jew.  But  the  directorate  wanted 
to  know,  further,  what  the  standing  of  such  a  boy  would 
be  in  the  future  as  a  Jew,  i.  e.,  they  wanted  enlightenment 
on  the  practical,  not  the  theoretical  aspect,  of  the  matter. 
The  answers  were  so  involved  that  the  directorate  could 
not  comprehend  them,  and  even  now  do  not  know  whether 


430  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

such  a  person  is  to  be  considered  a  Jew  in  the  performance 
of  ritual  functions  like  being  called  to  the  Torah,  whether 
he  can  be  married  as  a  Jew,  etc.,  etc.  Only  one  of  the 
rabbis  gave  a  clear  answer,  inasmuch  as  he  said  that  he 
distinguished  between  the  subjective  and  the  objective  as- 
pects of  the  case.  Subjectively  he  considered  such  a  one 
a  Jew,  e.  g.,  he  would  marry  him ;  on  the  other  hand,  such 
a  one  could  never  be  a  rabbi  or  cantor.  The  directorate  was 
therefore  at  sea,  and  he  had  come  to  the  meeting  with  the 
hope  that  these  questions  would  receive  the  fullest  consid- 
eration; this  could  not  be  done  were  they  to  be  discussed 
at  once ;  he,  therefore,  urged  that  they  be  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee for  thorough  investigation  along  the  lines  of  Jewish 
regulations.  This  proved  to  be,  the  sense  of  the  meeting 
and  both  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  committee  consist- 
ing of  Drs.  Landau,  Aub,  Joel,  Low,  and  Wechsler.  This 
committee  was  well  balanced— Landau  representing  the 
orthodox,  Joel,  Aub,  and  Low  the  conservative,  and 
Wechsler  the  liberal  tendency. 

Many  resolutions  on  various  subjects  were  submitted  to 
the  Conference,  but  were  not  acted  upon;  some  were  re- 
ferred to  the  proper  committees  for  report  at  the  next  synod, 
while  others  were  merely  printed  in  the  appendix  to  the 
proceedings. 1 

The  Synod  adjourned  on  July  4th  after  listening  to  the 
inspiring  closing  address  of  the  president,  some  significant 
paragraphs  of  which  have  been  already  given.  It  will 
suffice,  therefore,  to  reproduce  here  merely  those  words 
wherein  the  speaker  set  forth  the  importance  of  the  gath- 
ering for  the  history  of  Judaism:  "The  guiding  principle 
which,  in  various  guises,  has  animated  our  proceedings  has 
been  the  golden  mean :  we  would  not  be  of  those  who  press 
the  hand  to  the  dial  or  set  it  back  and  believe  that  th3 
clock  has  stopped  running;  nor  would  we  be  of  those  who 
are  constantly  winding  the  clock.  It  is  a  well-known  fact 

1  Verhandlungen,  246-260. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  431 

that  the  clock  stops  running  while  it  is  being  wound,  hence 
such  as  constantly  wind  the  clock  do  not  know  at  all  what 
is  the  time.  In  conclusion,  let  me  give  voice  to  the  emotions 
which  sway  and  should  sway  us  here  and  now  rpn  21B  DV1 

y:s  ^2  Ditea  K^I  D^BO  0:3:00  nnsan  Dvn  5na  fro  ntpw 
We  are  in  a  holiday  mood;  for  we,  too,  have1  been  in  the 
Holy  of  Holies.  We  have  been  serving  in  the  Holy  of 
Holies  of  mankind— the  development,  the  beautifying  and 
the  clarifying  of  our  own  religion  and  its  institutions.  You 
who  are  theologians  know  well  that  the  service  in  the  Holy 
of  Holies  was  consecrated  but  dangerous.  Consecrated  but 
dangerous  is  also  the  service  which  we  have  performed 
here :  but  that  which  was  sought  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  we 
also  desire  to  find,  namely,  reconciliation. '  '2 

The  Leipzig  Synod  was  characterized  by  the  spirit  of 
moderate  and  gradual  progress.  Although  of  a  reform 
tendency,  its  proceedings  and  resolutions  were  in  no  single 
instance  radical  in  character.3  It  took  up  for  action  such 
subjects  as  had  been  discussed  publicly  and  privately  for 
many  years  and  concerning  which  the  views  were  clear,  but 
for  which  some  authority  was  desired.  It  did  not  call  forth 
acrimonious  discussions  to  the  degree  that  the  rabbinical 
Conferences  of  the  fifth  decade  had  done;  this  was  largely 
due,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  fact  that  in  the  intervening 
quarter  of  a  century  reform  had  made  quiet  headway ;  and 
secondly,  to  the  circumstance  that  none  of  the  changes 
advocated  were  of  such  a  nature  as  to  fan  the  smoldering 
fires  of  theological  passion  into  flame.  The  proceedings 
had  been  conducted  on  so  high  a  plane  and  were  so  peaceful 
in  character  that  Lazarus  was  apparently  justified  in  the 
prophetic  utterance  which  was  the  concluding  sentence  of 

1  The  high  priest  made  it  a  festive  occasion  when,  on  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  he  entered  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  peace  and  came  forth 
in  peace  without  having  suffered  harm. 

2  Ibid.,  214. 

SL.  Philippson.  Zur  CharaJcteristik  der  ersten  judischen  Synode. 
Berlin,  1869. 


432  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

his  closing  address:  "Our  Synod  forms  the  foundation  of 
future  Synods."  The  men  who  had  gathered  at  Leipzig 
departed  for  their  homes  animated  by  the  high  feeling  that 
they  had  builded  lastingly  and  had  assisted  at  the  inaugura- 
tion of  a  perennial  institution  which  in  time  would  become 
the  body  of  authority  for  Israel.  A  good  beginning  had 
been  made.  A  large  number  of  representative  and  earnest 
men  had  gathered  together.  Much  work  had  been  pro- 
jected for  the  next  synod ;  important  resolutions  had  been 
referred  to  committees  for  report  at  the  next  synod,  and  it- 
had  been  resolved  that  these  various  reports  should  be  dis- 
tributed broadcast  in  the  spring,  so  that  when  the  synod 
met  in  the  summer,  the  delegates  might  come  fully  pre- 
pared, inasmuch  as  ample  opportunity  would  have  been 
had  for  the  consideration  and  discussion  of  the  various 
matters  to  be  acted  upon.  The  following  year  the  Franco- 
Prussian  war  took  place ;  there  was  neither  room  nor 
thought  in  Germany  for  anything  but  this  war ;  it  was  not 
to  be  expected  that  any  synodal  gathering  could  take  place 
during  this  period  of  national  excitement ;  *  but  in  the  fol- 
lowing year  the  work  begun  at  Leipzig  was  continued  in 
the  second  synod  which  convened  in  the  south  German  city 
of  Augsburg. 

The  Augsburg  Synod 

This  synod  was  composed  of  fifty-two  delegates  from 
thirty  congregations,  a  noticeable  falling  off  from  the  at- 
tendance and  the  representation  at  Leipzig.  True,  among 
the  delegates  were  quite  a  number  of  distinguished  rabbis 
and  laymen.  The  large  cities,  such  as  Berlin,  Vienna, 
Frankfort,  Leipzig,  Munich,  again  participated,  as  well 
as  a  number  of  smaller  communities,  notably  those  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Augsburg.  The  hope  that  the  synod  would 
become  Pan-Jewish  was  not  realized,  for  only  Jewish  com- 
munities of  Germany  were  represented,  with  the  exception 
of  Vienna  for  Austria,  Szegedin  for  Hungary,  Krakau  for 

'Geiger,  J.  Z.  W.  L.,  VIII  (1870),  81. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUBG  SYNODS  433 

Galicia,  and  St.  Gallen  for  Switzerland.1  The  delegates 
at  the  Leipzig  synod  had  parted  from  that  meeting  ani- 
mated by  great  enthusiasm,  the  synod  at  Augsburg  was 
permeated  with  a  spirit  of  discouragement  from  the  start, 
because  many  communities  that  had  been  confidently  ex- 
pected to  participate  had  failed  to  do  so.  It  was  evident 
that  the  results  of  the  meeting  at  Leipzig  had  not  been  of 
such  a  character  as  to  assure  the  congregations  that  the 
synod  as  there  constituted,  was  able  to  solve  the  problems 
that  were  vexing  Judaism.  The  radicals  ridiculed  it  for 
devoting  attention  to  matters  which  they  had  long  since 
ceased  to  consider  of  paramount  importance,  the  orthodox 
had  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  from  the  start  because  of 
the  reform  tendency  of  the  movement,  while  the  thousands 
who  were  in  sympathy  with  a  project  whose  avowed  pur- 
port was  to  solve  the  perplexities  arising  from  the  conflict 
of  rabbinical  Judaism  with  the  modern  environment  and 
outlook  were  disappointed  in  the  Leipzig  synod  because  of 
the  fearsome  timidity  which  marked  its  proceedings.  Even 
had  it  been  possible  to  convene  the  second  synod  in  1870 
it  would  have  been  altogether  likely  that  the  effect  of  these 
views  would  have  been  felt ;  and  when  the  synod  did  actu- 
ally convene  at  Augsburg  this  was  found  to  be  the  case.  In 
his  opening  address  Lazarus,  who  was  elected  president  of 
this  synod  also,  contrasted  the  Leipzig  assembly  with  the 
present.  There  they  had  met  as  at  a  festive  gathering; 
here  they  had  come  together  primarily  for  work ;  they  had 
not  assembled  in  a  spirit  of  great  encouragement,  for  the 
synod  was  not  sustained  generally  by  the  congregations 
as  it  should  have  been.2 

1  Mention    must   be    made    in    this    connection    of    a    transatlantic 
greeting  to  the  synod  at  the  opening  session.     Dr.  Geiger  read  from 
a  personal  letter  addressed  to  him  by  Kabbi  Isaac  M.  Wise,  of  Cin- 
cinnati, in  which  the  great  American  rabbi  had  written,  "I  intended 
to  visit  the  synod,  but  I  am  unfortunately       tfjiy  i^p' ' ;   after  describ- 
ing the  interest  manifested  in  the  synod  in  various  parts  of  America, 
the  communication  closed  with  the  words,  "May  God  bless  you." 

2  Lazarus  in  this  address  criticized  sharply  those  who  had  failed  to 


434  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  Augsburg  synod  met  from  July  11-17,  1871.  The 
more  notable  rabbis  present  were  Geiger  and  Aub,  of 
Berlin;  Low,  of  Szegedin;  Nehemias  Briill,  of  Frankfort- 
on-the-Main ;  Griinebaum,  of  Landau ;  Adler,  of  Cassel. 
Goldschmidt,  of  Leipzig ;  Wiener,  of  Oppeln,  and  Wechsler, 
of  Oldenburg.  Of  lay  delegates  the  most  distinguished 
were  Prof.  M.  Lazarus,  of  Berlin ;  Joseph  von  Wertheimer, 
S.  Szanto,  and  Leopold  Kompert,  of  Vienna;  Dr.  Jacob 
Auerbach,  of  Frankfort;  Prof.  Julius  Fiirst  and  M. 
Kohner,  of  Leipzig ;  and  Dr.  Gustav  Josephthal,  of  Nurem- 
berg. The  synod  organized  by  electing  Prof.  M.  Lazarus 
president,  Dr.  Abraham  Geiger  and  Leopold  Kompert  vice- 
presidents,  and  A.  Wertheim,  of  Berlin,  and  G.  Josephthal, 
of  Nuremberg,  secretaries. 

The  president,  in  taking  the  chair,  delivered  a  lengthy 
address.  He  declared  that  the  object  of  the  synod  was  not 
only  to  pass  new  resolutions  for  the  delegates  to  take  home, 
but  to  imbue  them  with  new  life  and  new  energy  for  Juda- 
ism ;  to  give  them  not  only  new  thoughts  but  new  courage 
for  the  cause.  It  was  incumbent  upon  them  to  deal  not 
only  with  practical  questions,  but  with  the  whole  higher 
outlook  of  Judaism,  for  it  was  quite  possible  that  a  synod 
might  meet  at  some  future  time  when  there  were  no  burning 
problems  to  solve.  In  such  case  the  synod  would  be  no 
less  significant  and  necessary  as  the  ideal  assembly  in  which 
men  met  together  to  celebrate  as  it  were  the  feast  of  loyalty, 
unity  and  harmony  in  spirit;  the  synod  would  then  be  as 
a  place  of  pilgrimage  in  the  newer  time  and  in  accordance 
with  the  newer  spirit.  True,  it  is  necessary  that  at  every 
synod  certain  minor  reforms  be  achieved,  certain  institu- 
tions modified,  certain  forms  and  traditions  abrogated, 
put  in  an  appearance  at  this  meeting.  In  1887  he  issued  a  volume 
of  addresses  and  essays  entitled  Treu  und  Frei,  in  which  this  Augs- 
burg address  was  included.  Philippson,  who  had  remained  away 
from  the  Augsburg  assembly,  answered  the  criticism  and  made  it  the 
occasion  for  an  estimate  of  the  synods,  explaining  at  the  same  time 
why  they  had  failed.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LI  (1887),  501-3,  514-17. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUBG  SYNODS  435 

But  this  is  not  enough— "The  more  ideal,  the  more  prac- 
tical ; "  we  cannot  live  from  hand  to  mouth ;  we  must  keep 
constantly  in  view  the  great  and  eternal  truths  of  our  re- 
ligion and  strive  to  have  these  understood  ever  better.  Nor 
is  it  enough  for  the  synod  to  recommend  only  such  things 
as  it  is  sure  the  congregations  will  accept;  it  must  teach 
and  lead  and  be  a  true  guide. 

Marriage  Reforms.— In  no  province  of  Jewish  life  was 
reform  of  traditional  institutions  more  necessary  than  in  the 
marriage  legislation.  Here  the  Oriental  origin  of  Juda- 
ism was  apparent  in  a  number  of  institutions  that  were  re- 
pugnant to  the  Occidental  view;  the  relation,  too,  of  the 
Jewish  marriage  law  to  the  civil  law  had  to  be  regulated; 
before  the  Jews  acquired  rights  of  citizenship  in  the  coun- 
tries of  their  birth  and  residence  they  had  their  own 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction;  marriage  and  divorce  were 
governed  altogether  by  the  dicta  of  the  rabbinical  law. 
How  regulate  the  relation  between  the  Jewish  laws  and  the 
civil  statutes  on  the  subject  ?  Further,  in  the  modern  view 
of  the  universalistic  character  of  Judaism  as  opposed  to  the 
nationalistic,  what  was  the  status  of  much  of  the  traditional 
marriage  legislation  which  was  of  a  distinctly  nationalistic 
character?  At  the  rabbinical  Conference  of  Brunswick  in 
1844  a  Commission  had  been  appointed  to  revise  the  mar- 
riage laws,  but  it  did  not  report  at  either  of  the  two  suc- 
ceeding Conferences.  At  the  first  session  of  the  Breslau 
Conference  in  1846  Holdheim  had  presented  a  lengthy 
communication  suggesting  many  reforms  in  the  laws  of 
marriage  and  divorce,  but  no  action  was  taken ; 1  since  then 
there  had  been  no  Jewish  gathering  of  an  authoritative 
character  in  Europe  where  these  subjects  could  be  dis- 
cussed. 2  Presumably  the  rabbinical  legislation  was  still 

1  At  about  the  same  time  A.  Eebenstein  urged  the  necessity  of  the 
reform  of  the  marriage  laws;   see  his  article  Unsere  Gegenwart  in 
Freund's  Zur  Judenfrage  in  Deutschland,  II,  14-21. 

2  The  rabbinical  conference  held  in  Philadelphia,  U.  S.  A.,  in  1869 
passed  some  resolutions  on  the  subject;  see  below. 


436  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  norm  of  Jewish  practice  here ;  but,  as  in  so  many  other 
things,  modern  life  had  decided  many  of  the  points  involved 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  this  rabbinical  legislation.  Tradi- 
tion and  practice  had  parted  ways,  and  it  was  necessary 
that  there  be  a  reconciliation;  hence  the  synod  at  Augs- 
burg made  the  subject  of  the  marriage  legislation  its  first 
order  of  business.  The  action  of  the  synod  on  this  all-im- 
portant subject  cannot  be  considered  adequate,  for  no 
general  principles  were  laid  down,  but  merely  special  points 
were  discussed  and  acted  upon.  The  resolutions  adopted 
were  these: 

1.  It  is  permissible  during  the  marriage  ceremony  for 
the  bride  to  give  the  bridegroom  a  ring  accompanied  by 
some  appropriate  words  after  the  bridegroom  has  placed 
the  ring  on  the  bride's  finger  while  speaking  the  traditional 
formula  WllpB  DK  nil. 1 

In  the  traditional  marriage  ceremony  the  bride  was  pas- 
sive. The  ring  was  the  symbol  of  her  acquisition  by  the 
groom.  The  significance  of  this  action  of  the  synod  per- 
mitting the  exchange  of  rings,  and  the  active  participation 
of  the  bride  in  the  ceremony  by  the  utterance  of  some 
appropriate  words  ( Geiger  suggested  the  phrase  in  the  Song 
of  Songs,  ^n5  "ON,  I  am  my  beloved's  and  my  beloved  is 
mine)  lay  in  its  designating  hereby  the  equality  of  the 
sexes.  "The  old  juridical  view,  according  to  which  the 
woman  was  a  chattel  that  the  man  acquired,  has  disappeared 
entirely  from  among  us, ' '  said  Geiger,  the  chairman  of  the 
Commission.  "We  do  not  wish  to  retain  any  form  what- 
soever which  was  symbolical  of  this  view  in  earlier  days. 
This  is  the  significance  of  the  resolution  that  two  rings  be 
used  in  the  ceremony,  in  order  that  it  become  known  there- 
by that  the  man  and  the  woman  marry  one  another,  as 
responsible  moral  personalities,  or  if  only  one  ring  be  used, 
Judaism  protests  decidedly  against  the  imputation  that  an 

1  Be  them  sanctified  to  me  by  this  ring  according  to  the  law  of 
Moses  and  Israel. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  437 

old  Oriental  view  still  holds  in  its  midst  whereby  the  worth 
and  dignity  of  woman  are  discriminated  against  legally  in 
any  way,  even  though  this  was  not  the  case  in  life. ' n  The 
truth  of  the  matter  was  that  in  a  number  of  congregations 
like  Berlin  and  Frankfort  the  ceremony  of  exchanging 
rings  had  been  in  vogue  for  some  time;  the  synod  by 
recommending  it,  or  rather  declaring  it  permissible,  simply 
added  the  weight  of  its  authority  to  an  accomplished  fact; 
but  the  action  was  important  in  view  of  the  implication  of 
woman's  parity  with  man;  the  rabbinical  standpoint  of 
woman's  inferior  position  legally  and  in  public  functions 
was  abandoned  and  the  reform  position  in  this  matter  en- 
dorsed. 

2.  The  synod  recommends  that  in  those  countries  in 
which  the  civil  marriage  is  given  in  charge  of  the  rabbis, 
questions  asking  if  they  consent  to  the  marriage  be  put  to 
the  high  contracting  parties  at  the  religious  ceremony  anal- 
ogous to  the  prescribed  formula  used  in  the  land  of  Wurtem- 
berg. 

The  point  of  this  resolution  lay  in  the  fact  that  in  some 
countries  a  civil  ceremony  performed  by  a  civil  officer  had 
to  precede  the  religious  ceremony  performed  by  the  rabbi ; 
in  such  cases  there  would  be  neither  rhyme  nor  reason  in 
the  rabbi's  asking  the  couple  if  they  consented  to  the  mar- 
riage since  they  were  already  civilly  married ;  in  countries 
where  the  religious  ceremony  was  considered  also  the  civil 
ceremony  the  questions  had  point;  again,  by  putting  the 
question  also  to  the  woman,  her  equality  with  the  man  was 
emphasized  once  more. 

3.  No  one  may  be  objected  to  as  a  witness  at  marriages 
and  divorces  on  the  score  of  the  non-observance  of  a  ritual 
law. 

From  the  traditional  standpoint  no  Jew  who  failed  to 
observe  all  the  ritual  laws  was  permitted  to  give  testimony 
before  the  Beth  Din  or  to  serve  as  a  witness  at  marriages 

•Verhandlungen,  41. 


438  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

or  divorces.  A  number  of  speakers,  notably  Dr.  Vogel- 
stein, J  urged  that  this  resolution  be  laid  on  the  table  on 
the  ground  that  no  rabbi  who  was  guided  by  rational  prin- 
ciples would  in  the  present  day  make  the  observance  of  the 
ritual  law  a  condition  sine  qua  non  of  a  man's  availability 
as  a  witness,  and  that,  further,  such  a  resolution  would 
lessen  whatever  confidence  the  orthodox  party  might  repose 
in  them.  Low  and  Geiger  especially  insisted  on  the  adop- 
tion of  the  resolution,  the  former  on  the  ground  that  in 
Hungary  instances  had  occurred  very  recently  where  rab- 
bis had  ruled  out  men  as  witnesses  for  this  very  reason; 
the  latter  on  the  score  of  principle,  because  this  involved 
a  vital  distinction  between  the  rabbinical  view-point  and 
the  modern.  "The  question  here  is,  Are  men  trustworthy 
as  witnesses  if  they  act  in  accordance  with  their  conscience 
and  their  conviction,  considering  this  or  that  as  unessential, 
or  are  they  to  be  stamped  as  unreliable  on  this  account? 
Are  they  not  to  be  accepted  as  witnesses  in  general  and  at 
marriages  in  particular  on  this  account?  It  is  of  great 
importance  to  declare  ourselves  on  this  point.  In  former 
days  all  things  hung  together ;  if  an  individual  disregarded 
the  ritual  laws  it  was  assumed  that  he  did  this  from  frivol- 
ity and  levity,  hence,  he  could  not  act  as  a  witness.  We  do 
not  accuse  our  ancestors  of  narrow-mindedness  on  this  ac- 
count; nay,  this  principle  was  not  an  established  rule  in 
the  ancient  days,  it  became  such  only  in  the  hard  dark 


Why,  I  ask,  then,  shall  we  not  make  this  declaration? 
Modern  Judaism  recognizes  the  conscientiousness  and 
credibility  of  every  person  even  if  he  has  his  own  individ- 
ual views.  Thus  must  be  declared  openly  and  may  not  be 
evaded."2 

The   synod   adopted    this   resolution    unanimously    and 

1  Recently  this  rabbi  has  written  on  the  subject  of  the  reform  of 
the  marriage  laws.     A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1904,  426. 
• Ibid.,  68. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  439 

repudiated  by  this  act  the  fundamental  principle  of  rab- 
binism  of  the  eternal  validity  of  every  regulation  of  the 
traditional  law. 

4.  The  synod  declares  that  the  custom  of  not  having 
marriage  ceremonies  performed  on  certain  supposedly  un- 
lucky days,  viz.,  during  the  interval  between  Passover  and 
the  Feast  of  Weeks,  as  well  as  during  the  so-called  Three 
Weeks,1  with  the  exception  of  the  week  in  which  the  ninth 
of  Ab  falls,  conduces  to  superstition  and  corresponds  to  no 
true  pious  sentiment.  Hence,  the  synod  regards  this 
restriction  as  abolished. 

The  custom  prevalent  among  Jews  of  not  marrying  dur- 
ing the  weeks  between  the  Feasts  of  Passover  and  Weeks 
(excepting  on  the  thirty- third  day)  was  attributed  com- 
monly to  the  tradition  that  during  this  period  the  thousands 
of  pupils  of  Rabbi  Aqiba  died  from  a  plague,  and  that 
therefore  this  was  a  time  of  mourning  during  which  it  was 
improper  to  celebrate  so  joyous  an  event  as  a  wedding. 
This  was,  however,  only  an  ostensible  reason;  the  real 
origin  of  the  custom  lay  in  the  Roman  avoidance  of  mar- 
riage during  the  month  of  May,  during  which  month  the 
spirits  of  the  dead  were  supposed  to  return  to  earth  and 
bring  misfortune  to  the  living  unless  exorcised  by  prescribed 
formulae.2  The  synod  rightly  condemned  this  supersti- 
tion, which  is  still  widespread.  As  for  the  second  custom 
mentioned,  viz.,  the  intermission  of  marriage  ceremonies 
during  the  so-called  three  weeks,  it  is  readily  comprehensible 
that  Jewish  nationalists  should  consider  these  weeks  as  a 
period  of  mourning  par  excellence,  for  in  their  view  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  the  beginning  of  Israel 's  great 
travail  in  the  world  and  the  most  tragical  of  all  occurrences ; 

1  From  the  seventeenth  of  Tammuz,  the  day  on  which  the  first 
breach  was  made  in  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  to  the 
ninth  of  Ab,  the  day  of  the  destruction  of  the  city. 

aCf.  Landsberger  Ueber  Eheschliessungen  zwischen  Pesach  und 
Shabuoth  in  Geiger's  Jiidische  Zeitschrlft  fur  Wissenschaft  und 
Leben,  VII  (1869),  81-96. 


440  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

but  the  synod,  representing  the  view  that  the  old  Jewish 
political  existence  had  passed  altogether  and  the  Jews  were 
incorporated  in  the  modern  nationalities,  could  not  acquiesce 
in  this  feeling.  In  the  view  of  modern  Judaism  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  was  the  end  of  the  preparatory 
national  existence  of  the  Jews  and  the  beginning  of  their 
larger  mission  as  missionaries  of  the  truth  of  the  One  God 
in  all  parts  of  the  earth,  whither  they  were  scattered.  How- 
ever, although  disenthralled  from  Palestinianism  though 
many  of  the  synodians  were,  yet  was  the  spell  of  the 
mournful  significance  of  the  month  of  Ab,  the  anniversary 
of  the  actual  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  still  too  potent  to  be 
discarded  altogether.  This  day  was  still  quite  generally 
observed  as  a  fast  day  and  in  deference  to  this  widespread 
custom  the  resolution  excepted  the  week  in  which  the  ninth 
of  Ab  itself  fell,  and  declared  that  the  prohibition  to  marry 
still  held  for  this  time.  Dr.  J.  Aub,  of  Berlin,  expressed 
the  views  of  the  majority  when  he  said:  "Although  we 
have  long  since  been  comforted  for  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  although  we  entertain  no  longer  the  wish  to  re- 
turn to  Palestine  to  found  our  own  state,  since  we  are 
citizens  of  our  fatherland,  and  love  it  with  all  our  heart 
and  all  our  might,  still,  the  first  and  second  destructions  of 
Jerusalem  were  sad  events,  which  cost  so  many  lives  and 
led  our  people  into  captivity;  let  the  memory  thereof  be 
sacred  to  us.  But  let  us  thank  God  that  we  live  in  better 
times,  without,  however,  forgetting  that  catastrophe;  but 
the  observance  of  this  day  is  quite  sufficient;  at  most  we 
will  not  officiate  at  marriages  during  the  one  week  in  which 
this  day  falls.  If  we  extend  the  time  of  the  prohibition 
we  will  weaken  the  impression  of  the  memory  of  the  event. ' ' 
The  out-and-out  reformers  went  much  further  than  that ;  in 
place  of  the  traditional  service  of  lamentation  on  this  day, 
they  suggested  the  substitution  of  a  service  which,  while 
it  dwelt  upon  all  that  was  precious  and  dear  in  the  memory 
of  Palestine  and  Jerusalem,  laid  the  chief  stress  on  the  uni- 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  441 

versalistic  prophetic  teachings  of  the  faith  which  stands  out 
all  the  more  clearly  since  the  fortunes  of  the  religion  are 
no  longer  bound  up  with  the  petty  politics  of  a  small  coun- 
try. *  This  to-day  is  the  vital  distinction  between  reform 
Judaism,  the  interpreter  of  the  universalistic  outlook  of 
the  faith,  and  political  Zionism,  the  re-incarnation  of  nar- 
row nationalism. 

5.  A  widow,  who  has  been  left  with  a  child,  need  not 
wait  longer  than  a  year  before  contracting  a  second  mar- 
riage.    In  cases  where  the  interests  of  the  widow  or  the 
child  make  it  desirable  that  the  marriage  be  not  delayed 
so  long,  it  may  take  place  sooner. 

The  traditional  law  was  that  no  widow  could  remarry 
until  her  youngest  child  was  two  years  old  on  the  ground 
that  a  child  requires  nursing  until  it  reaches  that  age.  The 
unanimous  adoption  of  this  reform  of  a  traditional  law  is 
indication  sufficient  of  the  fact  that  the  synod  considered 
itself  empowered  to  make  such  changes  in  the  existing  Jew- 
ish marriage  laws  as  were  made  necessary  by  the  different 
conditions  under  which  the  Jews  were  living.  In  the 
opinion  of  all  the  men  present  the  state  of  affairs  which 
made  a  two-years'  interval  in  these  cases  necessary  and 
feasible  had  passed,  and  hence  a  change  was  necessitated  in 
the  law.  This,  when  all  is  said,  is  the  underlying  principle 
and  justification  of  all  reforms,  be  they  small  or  great. 

6.  The  civil  marriage  has  full  validity  and  sanction, 
according  to  the  view  of  Judaism,  provided  that  the  prohi- 
bitions enumerated  in  the  Mosaic  law  are  not  transgressed. 
Still  the  religious  ceremony  is  necessary  to  give  marriage 
that  consecration  which  its  importance  requires. 

This  resolution  called  forth  a  lengthy  discussion.  It  in 
truth  struck  at  the  root  of  the  whole  question  of  the  rela- 
tion of  Judaism  to  the  state.  Before  the  Jews  became 

1  See  Einhorn  }s  ' l  Morning  Service  for  the  Anniversary  of  the 
Destruction  of  Jerusalem "  in  his  Prayer-Book  (English  Transla- 
tion), pp.  319-339,  notably  the  lofty  prayer,  pp.  330-3. 


442  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

citizens  of  the  lands  wherein  they  were  born  or  were  living, 
the  Jewish  marriage  law  was  alone  valid  for  the  Jew  who 
desired  to  enter  the  matrimonial  relation,  but  when  he  be- 
came a  citizen  of  the  state,  the  laws  of  the  state  became 
operative  for  him  in  the  marriage  relation  as  in  all  things. 
Now,  in  some  states  there  were  civil  officers  empowered  to 
contract  marriages— were  such  marriages  legal  from  the 
Jewish  standpoint,  or  must  they  be  supplemented  by  the 
Jewish  ceremony?  There  was  no  question  with  any  of 
the  members  of  the  synod  that  such  marriages  were  legal. 
But  this  was  not  the  most  serious  point  at  issue.  How 
about  marriage  ceremonies  performed  by  a  rabbi  without 
a  civil  marriage  having  been  performed  or  a  license  having 
been  secured  where  this  was  demanded  by  the  law  of  the 
land?  Were  these  illegal?  Was  such  a  couple  living  in 
concubinage?  The  whole  matter  of  marriage  legislation 
had  to  be  recast  to  conform  with  the  changed  relationship 
of  Judaism  to  the  state.  The  law  in  Prussia  required  civil 
marriage  for  Jews  and  dissenters.  Hence  Dr.  Geiger  de- 
sired a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  synod  that  a  marriage 
contracted  only  according  to  Jewish  rites  in  lands  where  a 
civil  marriage  was  demanded  by  the  law  was  illegal.  This 
raised  a  storm  of  protest  on  the  ground  that  to  adopt  such 
a  resolution  would  be  a  reflection  on  Judaism,  and  that  it 
was  unjustifiable  for  a  Jewish  synod  to  declare  that  a  mar- 
riage performed  according  to  Jewish  rites  was  illegal  under 
any  circumstances.  Should  such  a  marriage  have  been 
performed  without  compliance  with  the  law  of  the  land, 
then  a  divorce  should  be  declared  necessary  before  either 
party  could  marry  again,  for  the  ceremony  had  been  per- 
formed in  good  faith.  This  was  the  overwhelming  senti- 
ment, and  Geiger,  in  consideration  thereof,  surrendered. 
The  resolution  as  finally  adopted  seemed  to  satisfy  the 
many  varying  opinions.  Although  anxious  and  desirous 
of  declaring  their  fealty  to  the  state,  the  delegates  were 
equally  anxious  to  emphasize  the  religious  aspect  of  the 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  443 

marriage  ceremony  and  the  high  moral  significance  of  the 
marriage  relation.  They  did  not  wish  to  have  marriage 
looked  upon  in  the  light  of  merely  a  civil  contract ;  hence, 
while  declaring  the  validity  of  the  civil  marriage,  they 
added  the  further  clause  that  marriage,  being  so  sacred  a 
relation,  it  was  greatly  to  be  desired  that  it  receive  the 
sanction  of  religion  through  the  ceremony  performed  in 
accordance  with  religious  rites. 

7.  A  legal  declaration  of  the  courts  concerning  the 
identity  of  a  deceased  person  and  a  legal  certificate  of  death 
has  sanction  also  for  ritual  cases. 

Here,  again,  the  synod  placed  itself  in  a  line  with 
modernity.  If  the  courts  of  the  land  declared  that  a  man 
who  had  disappeared  was  dead,  or  if  they  identified  a  dead 
body  as  that  of  such  a  one,  the  wife  was  to  be  looked  upon 
as  in  the  widowed  state,  and  be  permitted  to  remarry. 
The  means  of  identification  in  modern  days  were  so  much 
better  than  of  old,  that  the  legislation  of  the  Talmud  in 
this  matter  necessarily  had  to  give  way  to  the  legislation 
of  the  courts  of  the  land.  ' '  Unfortunately, ' '  said  Dr.  Aub 
the  referee,  ' '  cases  still  occur  in  which  rabbis  pay  no  regard 
to  the  voice  of  the  age,  are  not  cognizant  of  the  progress 
that  the  world  has  made,  and  are  still  guided  by  the  old 
laws  which  were  of  import  in  their  time,  because  in  that 
time  it  was  not  possible  to  identify  people  as  readily  as  is 
now  the  case,  and  because,  furthermore,  judicial  procedure 
in  those  days  was  not  always  impartial  as  far  as  Jews  were 
concerned.  Such  rabbis  still  wish  the  antiquated  laws  to 
be  observed,  and  thereby  misfortune  attends  the  life  of 
many  a  woman  because  she  must  remain  a  widow  forever. 
The  Court  declares:  the  husband  is  dead,  his  wife  is  a 
widow.  The  rabbi  says,  "We  do  not  know  if  the  man  was 
he  whose  identity  is  here  declared  but  whose  body  is  miss- 
ing." Therefore  the  Commission  recommended  that  iden- 
tification by  the  Courts  was  sufficient  and  final. 1 

1  Mielziner,  The  Jewish  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  112-114. 
Cincinnati,  1884. 


444  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

8.  The  provision  of  the  Torah  concerning  chalitzah  has 
lost  all  significance  for  us,  since  the  conditions  which  gave 
rise  to  the  levirate  marriage  and  chalitzah  no  longer  exist, 
and  the  idea  which  underlies  the  whole  institution  is 
foreign  to  our  religious  and  social  consciousness. 

The  non-performance  of  the  chalitzah  is  no  impediment 
to  the  widow's  remarriage.  Still,  for  the  sake  of  freedom 
of  conscience,  no  rabbi  will  refuse,  at  the  request  of  the 
parties,  to  conduct  the  act  of  chalitzah  in  a  proper  form.1 

The  synod,  in  declaring  this  Mosaic  institution  (Deut. 
xxv.  4-13)  without  significance,  merely  declared  officially, 
it  is  true,  what  had  long  been  the  case  actually ;  but  yet  the 
resolution  was  significant,  inasmuch  as  a  body  of  Jewish 
notables  made  this  public  utterance  regarding  the  invalid- 
ity of  a  Mosaic  institution.  It  abandoned  the  orthodox 
position  which  held  in  regard  to  all  such  laws  and  institu- 
tions which  were  impossible  of  observance  by  the  people 
scattered  through  the  world  that  these  were  only  suspended 
and  not  abrogated,  and  would  be  in  force  again  when 
Palestine  would  be  regained  and  become  the  home  once 
more  of  the  restored  Jewish  nationality.  It  was  in  the  de- 
bate on  this  subject  that  Dr.  Vogelstein  drew  sharply  the 
either-or  of  the  attitude  towards  the  Biblical  legislation— 
"  Either  we  say  that  the  Biblical  legislation  must  endure 
simply  because  it  is  in  the  Bible,  although  the  reason  for 
it  has  ceased  (in  that  case  the  letter  of  the  Bible  is  our 
sanctuary,  even  if  the  spirit  has  departed),  or  we  say,  we 
revere  the  Bible  and  we  consider  every  word  in  it  as  wise 
and  holy.  We  do  not  fail  to  recognize  that  through  this 
law,  which  is  contained  in  the  fifth  book  of  Moses,  a  bene- 
ficial institution  was  founded  for  that  age;  but  we  know 
that  the  reasons  that  gave  rise  to  that  law  do  not  exist  for 
us.  We  know,  further,  that  its  observance  would  no 
longer  be  a  benefit  for  us,  but  a  frightful  calamity;  we  can- 
not do  otherwise  than  abrogate  it  altogether.  Thus  we  will 

1  Verhandlungen,  128-135,  138-155. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUEG  SYNODS  445 

be  true  to  our  conscience,  and  at  the  same  time  will  assume 
the  proper  attitude  of  reverence  towards  the  Bible." 

9.  In  consideration  that  the  tenets  of  Christianity  and 
the  laws  of  modern  states  are  possibly  even  more  strict 
than  the  Jewish  marriage  law  on  the  subject  of  prohibited 
marriages,  that  they  regard  marriage  as  an  ethical  union, 
and   consequently   forbid   in   connection   therewith  every- 
thing that  offends  morality,  the  Israelitish  synod  of  Augs- 
burg declares: 

That  the  Talmudical  marriage  laws  touching  heathen 
proselytes  have  no  reference  to  such  persons  as  are  con- 
verted to  Judaism  from  any  one  of  the  Christian  sects. 

This  resolution  which  was  offered  by  Dr.  Adolf  Jellinek, 
of  Vienna,  through  Joseph  von  Wertheimer,  was  adopted 
unanimously  without  debate;  after  the  vote,  the  president, 
Prof.  Lazarus,  said :  "  In  an  assembly  like  this  much  appears 
in  the  transactions  which  is  self-evident.  But  it  is  well  to 
know  many  self-evident  things.  Twice  two  is  four,  and  the 
multiplication  table  is  also  self-evident;  but  it  is  bad  if 
one  does  not  know  it.  So  also  with  the  content  of  such 
resolutions  like  the  present.  Let  us  rejoice  that  this  is 
self-evident  for  us  and  that  it  was  adopted  unanimously; 
yet  it  is  not  unnecessary  that  it  be  adopted." 

The  reason  for  the  offering  and  adoption  of  this  resolu- 
tion lay  in  the  charge  made  so  constantly  by  enemies  of  the 
Jews  that  the  Talmudic  legislation  concerning  the  nokri 
and  the  Akum  (heathen)  refers  to  the  Christians.  This 
is  still  a  favorite  weapon  in  the  hands  of  anti-Semites ;  the 
unanimous  declaration  of  the  Augsburg  synod  is  the 
answer  of  all  Jews  to  this  charge. 

10.  The  Synod  resolves  to  appoint  a  Commission  to  re- 
port to  the  next  synod  on  the  jurisdiction  in  divorce  cases, 
viz.,  on  the  relation  of  rabbis  to  divorce  and  on  the  grounds 
of  divorce  which  are  still  to  be  considered  valid,  keeping 
in  view  the  equality  of  both  parties  to  the  divorce.  * 

1  Verhandlungen,  110-114,  157,  158. 


446  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  subject  of  divorce  was  not  discussed  at  all  at  this 
synod.  In  the  pre-emancipation  days  the  rabbinical 
divorce  had  full  validity  among  Jews ;  at  present  this  is  not 
regarded  as  valid  in  such  lands  where  the  granting  of 
divorce  is  a  function  of  the  civil  courts. 

Intermarriage.— Dr.  Emil  Lehmann,  of  Leipzig,  who  was 
prevented  from  attending  the  synod  through  illness,  had 
proposed  a  number  of  recommendations  on  various  sub- 
jects, one  of  which  touched  the  matter  of  intermarriage, 
and  was  as  follows : 1 

"The  declaration  of  the  rabbinical  Conference  at  Bruns- 
wick in  1844  that  there  is  no  objection  in  Judaism  to  mar- 
riage between  Jews  and  Christians,  provided  that  the  state 
does  not  demand  that  the  children  be  reared  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  still  meets  the  views  of  the  members  of  the 
synod  to-day  in  accordance  with  the  experiences  of  the  in- 
tervening years."  The  commission  on  the  reform  of  the 
marriage  law  to  whom  this  recommendation  was  referred 
suggested  that  it  be  laid  on  the  table  because  it  was  pre- 
mature in  view  of  the  existing  laws  in  various  states  and 
that,  therefore,  nothing  would  be  gained  by  any  resolution 
they  might  pass.  Geiger  amended  this  suggestion  by  mov- 
ing that  instead  of  laying  the  matter  on  the  table,  which 
was  equivalent  to  shelving  it  altogether,  it  be  deferred  to 
a  later  time;  this  would  mean  simply  that  they  were  not 
prepared  to  deliberate  upon  it  at  present,  but  would  in  the 
future.  This  was  concurred  in. 

1  Verhandlungen,  109.  Lehmann,  who  had  been  one  of  the  most  active 
members  of  the  Leipzig  synod,  and  who  was  one  of  the  clearest  thinkers 
among  the  Jews  of  Germany  among  the  advocates  of  progress  in 
Judaism,  published  just  before  the  convening  of  the  Augsburg  synod 
a  pamphlet  entitled  Zur  Synode  (Breslau,  1871),  in  which  he  dis- 
cussed the  various  subjects  to  be  brought  before  the  forthcoming 
synod  and  called  upon  the  congregations  to  participate  actively  in 
the  gathering  by  sending  delegates.  Fifteen  years  later  he  published 
his  Die  Juden,  Einst  und  Jetzt  (Dresden  and  Leipzig,  1886),  in 
which  he  urged  strongly  many  religious  reforms. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  447 

The  Sabbath.— At  the  Breslau  Conference  in  1846  the 
Sabbath  question  had  been  discussed  in  all  its  phases ;  as  a 
rather  full  resume  of  the  discussions  there  held  has  been 
given  in  a  former  chapter,  it  is  unnecessary  to  reproduce 
here  the  arguments  employed  at  this  synod.  In  truth,  the 
discussion  was  by  no  means  as  thorough  as  at  Breslau; 
there  were  only  some  few  special  points  which  the  Com- 
mission submitted  to  the  synod;  these  did  not  embrace  the 
consideration  of  the  whole  question  of  Sabbath  observance ; 
the  spirit  at  Augsburg  was  much  more  conservative  than 
at  Breslau,  and  there  was  absent  all  evidence  of  a  broad 
comprehension  of  the  subject  in  all  its  details.  The  only 
members  of  the  Breslau  Conference  who  were  present  at 
Augsburg  were  Geiger  and  Wechsler.  Their  remarks 
showed  some  of  the  spirit  of  the  first  rabbinical  Confer- 
ences. The  particular  question  under  discussion  was 
whether  it  was  permitted  to  ride  on  the  Sabbath,  doing 
away  at  the  same  time  with  the  Talmudical  casuistry  of 
the  " Sabbath  boundary."  The  discussion  had  moved 
largely  along  casuistical  lines,  when  Geiger  arose  and  said : 
"Let  us  not  forget  that  we  do  not  wish  to  open  a  casuisti- 
cal discussion  here,  but  that  we  must  have  in  mind  the  con- 
secration of  the  Sabbath  and  the  efficacy  of  the  religious 
institutions  of  Judaism.  .  .  .  The  whole  method  and  man- 
ner in  which  the  Sabbath  observance  has  been  developed 
during  the  past  fifteen  hundred  years  is  clearly  and  de- 
cidedly contradictory  of  the  true  idea  of  the  Sabbath;  the 
scrupulous  prohibitions  of  a  hundred  and  one  tasks,  the 
forced  extern alism— this  is  no  longer  the  significance  of 
the  Sabbath.  The  significance  of  the  Sabbath  lies  in  the 
composure  of  the  spirit  and  of  our  whole  nature.  This  it 
is  which  we  have  constantly  in  view,  and  this  cannot  be 
achieved  by  paragraphs  nor  by  combinations  and  compar- 
isons of  passages  from  the  writings  of  the  casuists.  There- 
by nothing  is  accomplished  for  our  time.  Let  us  leave  this 
alone,  if  we  have  not  the  courage  to  throw  the  whole 


448  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

casuistical  legislation  overboard;  that  were  truly  the  best 
thing  to  do.  But  let  us  approach  only  the  question  before 
us  and  express  ourselves  briefly  and  simply.  This  is  very 
clear:  if  it  has  become  evident  that  riding  on  the  Sabbath 
will  enable  many  to  attend  divine  services  who  would  be 
otherwise  prevented,  it  may  be  taken  for  granted  that  this 
will  be  decided  in  the  affirmative  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote.  But  it  is  impossible  to  discuss  the  various  minutiae 
of  this  and  similar  questions,  viz.,  what  the  old  teachers 
taught— men,  it  is  true,  of  the  deepest  insight;  men  whose 
memory  we  revere,  but  who  lived  in  their  age  and  not  in 
ours,  in  an  age  of  altogether  different  views,  circumstances, 
and  conditions.  Let  us  be  concerned,  then,  not  with  this 
in  our  decisions  on  the  points  before  us,  but  with  the  idea 
of  the  Sabbath,  with  the  needs  of  our  age. ' ' 

The  pronouncements  of  the  synod  on  the  subject  of  Sab- 
bath observance  were  these : x 

1.  If  the  distance  from  the  residence  to  the  house  of 
worship,  or  age  and  delicate  health,  prevent  attendance  at 
divine  service,  notably  if  this  be  of  an  elevating  and  edify- 
ing character,  it  is  permissible  to  remove  this  obstacle  by 
riding  on  Sabbath  and  holidays,  either  on  the  railroad  or 
in  a  vehicle  to  the  place  of  communal  worship. 

2.  This,  permission  extends  also  to  the  practice  of  char- 
itable acts  in  such  cases  where  delay  would  be  dangerous. 

3.  The  same  permission  holds  where  the  purpose  is  edu- 
cational or  recreative. 

An  Israelite  is  permitted  to  play  the  organ  in  the  house 
of  worship  on  the  Sabbath.2 

The  resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Wiener  and  adopted 
unanimously,  on  the  subject  of  the  attendance  at  divine 
service  by  school  youth  properly  belongs  in  this  place,  al- 
though it  did  not  form  part  of  the  Sabbath  discussion : 

1  Verhandlungen,  174-204. 

2  Ibid.,  205-210.     The  same  specific  question  had  been  discussed  at 
length  at  Breslau  and  decided  in  the  same  manner. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUBG  SYNODS  449 

"In  consideration  of  the  fact  that  the  reforms  in  the  pub- 
lic services  are  intended  for  the  benefit  of  the  younger 
generation,  but  our  youth  remains  away  from  the  house  of 
worship  because  of  attendance  at  school,  the  members  of 
the  synod  resolve  to  bend  all  their  efforts  towards  induc- 
ing parents  to  have  their  children,  girls  as  well  as  boys, 
excused  from  school  for  one  hour  in  order  to  enable  them 
to  attend  divine  service.  Only  by  this  means  can  a  choir 
be  formed  and  maintained  in  small  congregations.  The 
members  of  the  synod  shall  also  request  the  school  author- 
ities to  have  instruction  imparted  only  in  the  less  impor- 
tant subjects  during  the  hour  of  divine  service  on  the  Sab- 
bath, so  that  the  Jewish  children  will  not  miss  much  during 
their  absence." 

Circumcision.— The  resolutions  submitted  to  the  Leipzig 
synod  on  this  subject  had  been  referred  to  a  committee  to 
report  at  the  next  Synod.     The  subject  was  not  considered 
in  open  session  at  Augsburg,  but  at  an  executive  session  at 
which  nearly  all  the  members  were  present.     One  deliver- 
ance was  made  on  the  subject,  viz.,  "The  president  having 
declared  that  the  question  had  been  thoroughly  discussed 
in  an  executive  session  attended  by  most  of  the  members  of 
the  synod  at  which  session  the  great  importance  of  this 
sign   of  the   covenant   and  its  maintenance  as   a  symbol 
among  Jews  was  dwelt  upon  and  the  fact  deplored  that  it 
had  been  neglected  in  a  number  of  instances,  the  assembly 
unanimously  resolves:  Although  the  synod  premises  with- 
out any  reservation  the  supreme   importance  of  circum- 
cision in  Judaism,  it  yet  declares  in  answer  to  the  question 
propounded  *  that  a  boy  born  of  a  Jewish  mother  who  has 
not  been  circumcised,  for  whatsoever  reason  this  may  have 
been,  must  be  considered  a  Jew,  and  be  treated  as  such  in 
all  ritual  matters,  in  accordance  with  the  existing  rules  re- 
garded binding  for  Israelites   (Talm.  Bab.  Jeb.  70b,  Jore 
Dea264,  1). 
1  Supra,  428. 


450  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  Proselyte  Bath.— The  traditional  Jewish  law  pre- 
scribed the  ritual  bath  as  one  of  the  conditions  for  entrance 
into  Judaism,  to  be  taken  in  presence  of  witnesses.  Since 
women  were  not  admissible  as  witnesses  in  ritual  cases,  they 
being  in  the  same  category  as  minors  and  incompetents 
from  the  rabbinical  standpoint,  it  became  necessary,  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  it  was  not  uncommon  at  this  time  for  women 
to  proselytize  to  Judaism,  for  the  synod  to  make  some 
declaration  asserting  the  capability  of  women  to  act  in  the 
role  of  witnesses  to  this  act.  By  doing  so  it  practically 
emancipated  woman  from  the  inferior  position  that  she 
held  under  the  Talmudical  legislation.  Here,  again,  as  in 
so  many  cases,  it  became  evident  that  a  reinterpretation  of 
Judaism  was  necessary  in  the  spirit  of  modernity;  the 
resolution  of  the  Synod  was :  * '  The  assembly  declares  that 
the  validity  of  the  proselyte  bath  after  all  other  prescribed 
preliminary  conditions  have  been  fulfilled  by  a  woman 
desiring  to  become  converted  to  Judaism,  is  made  con- 
tingent upon  the  presence  of  two  trustworthy  Jewish 
vvomen. '  ' 

The  Education  of  Cantors.— Sulzer,  the  great  Viennese 
cantor,  had  presented  a  resolution  at  the  Leipzig  synod  ad- 
vocating the  need  of  a  course  of  instruction  for  cantors. 
The  idea  seems  to  have  been  to  train  cantors  with  a  view  to 
enabling  them  to  make  the  services  which  they  conducted 
as  impressive  as  possible.  It  could  not  be  denied  that  a 
tendency  of  the  reform  movement  was  to  make  the  service 
cold  by  depriving  it  of  color.  There  was  too  much  appeal 
to  the  intellect,  too  little  to  the  sentiment;  too  much  stress 
came  to  be  laid  on  the  sermon,  too  little  on  the  service. 
"The  more  that  religious  ceremony  disappears  from  life, 
the  more  care  must  be  exercised  to  have  a  service  in  the 
synagogue  that  furthers  religiosity,"  said  Dr.  Adler  in 
discussing  the  subject.  Hence,  the  synod  recommended 
that  "steps  be  taken  to  arrange  courses  for  the  training  of 
cantors  in  existing  teachers'  seminaries,  and  further  that 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  451 

institutions  be  called  into  being  for  the  especial  purpose  of 
training  Jewsh  cantors." 

The  Celebration  of  Chanukkah.—A  noticeable  construc- 
tive spirit  was  apparent  among  the  delegates  at  this  synod. 
They  were  reformers  for  the  most  part,  but  they  wished  to 
conserve  as  far  as  possible  and  to  strengthen  traditional 
institutions  if  these  could  be  brought  into  harmony  with 
the  contemporaneous  outlook.  A  case  in  point  was  the 
resolution  of  Dr.  Szanto,  of  Vienna,  on  the  question  of  the 
celebration  of  Chanukkah,  the  midwinter  festival  commem- 
orative of  the  Maccabean  exploits.  The  Viennese  congre- 
gation had  revived  the  celebration  which  had  fallen  into 
strange  neglect,  and  the  remarks  of  the  mover  of  the  reso- 
lution were  directed  towards  the  need  of  a  general  and 
united  effort  in  Jewry  to  invest  the  celebration  of  this  feast 
with  its  proper  spirit.  One  of  the  delegates,  Dr.  Silber- 
stein,  rabbi  in  Buttenhausen,  referred  to  the  extensive  cele- 
bration of  Christmas  by  Jews  and  the  corresponding 
neglect  of  their  own  feast  that  falls  at  the  same  time  of  the 
year.  This  matter  of  the  celebration  of  Chanukkah  first 
agitated  at  this  synod  has  since  engaged  the  attention  of 
Jewish  congregations  touched  by  the  modern  spirit.  The 
truth  of  the  matter  is  that  reform  Judaism  has  given  the 
Channukah  feast  a  place  in  the  public  religious  life  such 
as  it  never  had  in  the  heyday  of  rabbinical  Judaism.  Not 
being  a  Biblical  feast,  it  was  given  but  a  small  place  in  the 
code,  and  was  not  of  great  significance  in  the  life  of  the 
people;  compared  with  the  celebration  of  Purim,  for  ex- 
ample, Channukah  was  a  veritable  Cinderella.  Now  all 
this  has  quite  changed,  and  the  Augsburg  Synod  must  be 
credited  wth  having  been  the  first  public  gathering  to 
bring  the  subject  to  the  attention  of  the  people.  * 

The  Revision  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk.— Although  no 
definite  action  was  taken  on  the  subject,  yet  one  of  the 
most  interesting  episodes  of  the  synod  was  the  discussion 

1  Verhandlungen,  225-233. 


452  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

called  forth  by  the  resolution  of  Dr.  Wasserman,  rabbi 
of  Miihringen,  declaring  the  necessity  of  a  revision  of 
the  Shulchan  Aruk.  In  his  argument  he  spoke  of  the 
many  discrepancies  between  laws  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk, 
the  authoritative  code  of  Judaism,  and  the  life  of  the 
Jews.  "This  contradiction  between  theoretical  conviction 
and  the  practical  life  should  and  must  be  removed." 
He  declared,  further,  that  this  revision  should  be  under- 
taken, not  only  with  a  negative,  but  a  positive  purpose. 
He  explained  this  by  saying  that  the  "Shulchan  Aruk 
is  a  pure  corpus  juris;  moral  injunctions  are  only  inci- 
dental in  it.  I  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  the  assembly 
to  the  fact  that  the  highest  injunction  of  our  religion 
after  the  'Hear,  0  Israel,'  viz.,  'Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself/  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk. 
The  command,  'Thou  shalt  love  the  stranger,'  is  in  the 
Torah,  but  not  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk. "  ' '  For  this  reason 
our  religion  has  been  reproached  with  being  merely  leg- 
islation and  not  moral  teaching."  We  know  how  untrue 
this  charge  is  but  it  has  arisen  from  the  character  of  the 
greater  portion  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk.  A  Commission,  or 
call  it  what  you  will,  should  be  appointed  that  has  the  con- 
fidence of  all  Israel,  a  new  "Great  Assembly"  should  be 
created  which  should  give  us  a  revised  Shulchan  Anik 
such  as  our  age  needs  and  such  as  alone  will  have  validity 
in  our  age.  The  revision  and  amendment  of  this  or  that 
provision  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk,  as  has  been  proposed  and 
in  instances  resolved  upon  in  this  assembly,  is  only  a  make- 
shift; what  is  necessary  is  a  thorough,  broad,  and  compre- 
hensive treatment  of  the  whole  subject,  the  compilation  of 
a  code  in  consonance  with  the  religious  conceptions  and 
needs  of  our  age. 

Szanto  declared  himself  as  opposed  to  the  suggestion,  be- 
cause if  a  revision  of  the  code  were  undertaken,  there  would 
be  an  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  the  code.  "I 
am  a  conservative  Jew  ....  yet  in  my  orthodoxy  I  con- 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBUKG  SYNODS  453 

cede  no  such  authority  to  the  Shulchan  Aruk.  I  believe 
in  verbal  tradition,  I  am  no  Karaite.  ...  No  man  has  the 
right  to  lay  down  a  law  or  to  codify  it ;  God  alone  has  that 
right.  What  God  has  said  is  in  the  Bible;  and  of  what- 
ever is  not  in  the  Bible  I  say,  with  Omar,  that  is  not  of 
God,  else  God  had  said  it,"  He  declared,  further,  that 
there  had  always  been  free  discussion  and  development  in 
Judaism.  When  Maimonides  codified  the  laws  of  the  Tal- 
mud he  had  no  idea  of  making  this  an  authority,  but  merely 
a  compendium.  The  same  is  the  case  with  the  Shulchan 
Aruk;  it  is  a  compendium  like  any  other  handbook  that 
one  refers  to  whenever  he  wishes  to  know  the  exact  word- 
ing of  the  law.  "If  we  undertake  a  revision,  we  declare 
ourselves  Karaites,  worshipers  of  the  letter,  who  obey  not 
the  holy  word  of  God,  but  the  word  of  man.  .  .  .  The 
Shulchan  Aruk  cannot  be  revised  because  it  is  not  our  law- 
book."  This  argument  is  most  interesting  because  of  its 
casuistical  character.  It  is  in  part  true  and  in  part  not. 
True,  in  the  statement  that  there  was  always  development 
in  Judaism ;  not  true  in  the  declaration  that  the  Shulchan 
Aruk  is  not  the  authoritative  law-book  for  orthodox  Juda- 
ism. The  acceptance  of  the  authority  of  the  Shulchan 
Aruk  was  the  cause  of  the  cessation  of  any  development  in 
Judaism  after  the  sixteenth  century,  when  it  was  compiled, 
to  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth,  when  the  reform  move- 
ment arose.  Szanto  belonged  to  that  school  of  conservative 
Jews  who  were  in  reality  reformers,  but  were  not  clear  in 
their  own  thought.  His  statements  just  quoted  are  an 
excellent  gauge  of  the  confusion  of  thought  of  so  many 
who  have  not  grasped  the  essential  fundamentals  of  the 
reform  movement,  but  are  far  removed  from  the  true 
traditionalists  for  whom  the  rabbinical  codes  are  absolute 
norm  and  authority. 

Adler,  rabbi  of  Cassel,  stated  that  so  much  commanded 
in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  had  fallen  out  of  the  life  of  the 
Jews  that  were  they  to  begin  to  revise  the  code  very  little 


454  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

would  be  left.  ''Let  us  point  to  the  Bible,  let  us  say,  the 
spirit  of  religion,  the  spirit  of  eternal  truth,  which  is  in 
the  Bible  is  also  the  spirit  ;>f  the  moral  laws ;  the  Decalogue 
is  our  foundation,  and  whatever  has  grown  out  of  this  is 
the  kernel  of  our  religion.  Then  we  will  have  a  spiritual 
revision  and  every  revision  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk  is  un- 
necessary. ' ' 

Klingenstein,  editor  of  a  newspaper,  Der  Israelitische 
Lehrer,  opposed  the  suggestion  on  the  very  good  ground 
that  were  a  new  Shulchan  Aruk  to  be  codified,  this  would 
mean  simply  that  development  had  ceased ;  in  two  or  three 
centuries  this  codification  would  be  petrified,  as  is  the  case 
with  the  Shulchan  Aruk  now,  and  a  new  revision  would  be 
necessary  then.  No  bibliolatry;  the  synod  has  been 
created  in  order  that  our  religious  life  remain  fluid. 

Dr.  Nehemias  Briill,  the  learned  rabbi  of  Frankfort, 
spoke  but  a  few  words,  but  they  were  remarkably  to  the 
point:  "We  regret  that  the  fluid  word  of  the  Talmud  cod- 
ified in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  has  become  fixed,  and  we  would 
not  like  to  see  a  new  edition  and  revision  of  this  book,  a 
proceeding  which  could  only  be  injurious  to  the  develop- 
ment of  Judaism.  Every  new  revision  is  a  recognition  of 
the  book,  which,  as  a  religious  codex,  has  no  value  for  us. 
I  move  that  we  should  declare  openly  that  the  Shulchan 
Aruk  has  no  significance  for  us  as  a  religious  codex,  the 
views  written  down  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk  never  were  our 
theoretical  convicton  and  never  should  be  such."  Had 
the  synod  acted  upon  this  suggestion,  what  a  service  it 
would  have  rendered !  To  have  declared  in  open  assembly 
that  the  Shulchan  Aruk  had  no  significance  for  the  Jew  as 
a  religious  authority  would  have  been  sufficient  to  have 
made  this  synod  ever  memorable  in  the  history  of  Jewish 
thought.  But  the  delegates  did  not  rise  to  the  occasion. 
The  incident  closed  with  Wasserman's  withdrawal  of  his 
resolution. 

The  Augsburg  synod  is  of  little  real  significance;  the 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  455 

discussions  for  the  most  part  were  commonplace  and  lacked 
strength  and  power.  The  best  utterance  of  the  synod  was 
the  declaration  of  what  it  stood  for,  a  document  of  seven 
paragraphs  adopted  just  before  final  adjournment  on  July 
17.  This  was  really  the  valedictory  of  the  German  synods, 
since  no  other  convened ;  it  was  concurred  in  unanimously, 
with  great  acclaim,  and  was  couched  in  these  terms : 
The  Synod  declares— 

1.  Since  the  days  of  its  inception  in  hoary  antiquity, 
Judaism  has  passed  through  many  phases  of  development, 
and  in  them  has  unfolded  its  inmost  being  more  and  more. 
A  new   and  highly  significant  crisis  has  occurred  in  its 
history.     The  spirit  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
pure  morality  is  filling  more  and  more  the  consciousness 
of  mankind  and  is  impressing  itself  constantly  on  the  life 
of  the  nations,  on  state  and  people,  on  art  and  science. 
Judaism  joyfully  recognizes  in  this  phenomenon  an  ap- 
proach to  those  aims  which  have  at  all  times  guided  its 
course  through  history. 

2.  The   essence   and   mission    of   Judaism   remain    un- 
changeable in  themselves,  but  the  mighty  change  which  is 
taking  place  constantly  in  the  views  of  all  mankind,  and 
of  the  followers  of  Judaism  in  particular,  as  well  as  the 
entirely  new  position  of  the  latter  among  the  nations,  has 
called  forth  an  urgent  necessity  for  reorganization  of  many 
of  the  forms  of  Judaism. 

3.  Judaism  from  its  inception  always  stood  for  knowl- 
edge, and  has  likewise  constantly  premised  and  demanded 
harmony  between  thought,  feeling,  and  deed.     Along  this 
line   it   seeks  courageously  and  confidently  to  effect   the 
above-mentioned   change.     It    follows    only   its   innermost 
instincts  when,  with  full  esteem  for  the  higher  and  eternal 
possessions  of  life,  and  with  due  recognition  and  reverence 
for  the  past,  guided  by  the  results  of  earnest,  scientific  re- 
search, it  strives  to  do  away  with  antiquated  and  inap- 
propriate customs  and  to  forge  ahead  in  consonance  with 
the  spirit  of  the  times. 


456  THE  BEFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

4.  The  Synod  aims  to  be  the  organ  of  this  development. 
In  it  the  living  convictions  and  efforts  of  Judaism  of  to- 
day are  to  find  decided  expression.     With  clear  purpose, 
it  aims  to  bring  about  the  result  that  the  reorganization 
striven  for  during  several  decades  should  be  as  widely 
acceptable  as  possible  and  should  be  carried  to  a  successful 
conclusion  with  due  regard  to  the  needs  of  all  our  co-re- 
ligionists.    It   would   protect   the  bond   of   unity,   which 
twines  about  all  our  co-religionists,  against  disintegration, 
and  would  further  with  all  its  power  the  common  higher 
interests  in  life  and  science. 

5.  The  Synod  claims  for  its  resolutions  no  other  valid- 
ity than  that  which  the  force  of  truth,  of  sacred  earnestness 
and  of  firm  conviction  imparts.     It  knows,  however,  that 
this  power,  the  only  one  which  should  be  effective  in  the 
realm  of  religion,  is  irresistible  and  must  finally  gain  the 
victory  in  spite  of  all  difficulties  and  obstructions. 

6.  While  the  Synod  seeks  to  meet  the  demands  of  the 
times,  it  is  convinced  of  the  fact  that  it  is  working  for  the 
maintenance  of  Judaism.     Thus  it  feels  itself  in  unison 
with  the  spirit  of  Judaism  in  its  whole  historical  develop- 
ment,   at    one    with    all    its    co-religionists    of    whatever 
tendency,  and  hopes  to  bring  about  reconciliation,  not  im- 
mediately, it  is  true,  and  not  through  the  denial  of  con- 
victions, but  through  the  spirit  of  truth  which,  according 
to  our  old  teachers,  is  the  essential  condition  of  peace. 

7.  The  mission  of  the  Synod  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the 
above    declarations.     Considering    the    intimate    relation 
existing  between  religious  life  and  social  and  political  con- 
ditions, it  seems  rather  to  the  Synod  to  be  a  peremptory 
duty  that  in  the  matters  which  will  come  before  it  fitting 
expression  be  given  to  the  consciousness  of  relationship  as 
regards  the  political  and  social  standing  of  our  co-religion- 
ists. 

The  tendency  of  the  Augsburg  Synod  was  of  a  decidedly 
reform  character,  as  appeared  constantly  during  the  dis- 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  ATJGSBUKG  SYNODS  457 

cussions.  The  synodal  declaration  of  the  non-validity  of 
even  such  impossible  institutions  as  chalitzah,  and  the  offi- 
cial permission  to  disregard  the  refinements  of  Talmudical 
casuistry  on  the  subject  of  Sabbath  legislation,  as  well  as 
the  entire  spirit  of  this  gathering,  enraged  the  rabbinical 
orthodox  party  from  whose  midst  emanated  shortly  after 
the  adjournment  of  the  Synod  a  protest  signed  by  one 
hundred  and  thirty-three  rabbis  of  Germany,  Holland, 
Austria,  Hungary,  France,  and  Denmark,  which  contained 
the  following  pronunciamento : 

1.  Rabbis,  preachers,  and  other  Israelites  who  officiate 
at  a  marriage  prohibited  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  rabbinical 
legislation;  also  such  as  declare  this  or  that  Biblical  or 
rabbinical  marriage  prohibition  as  no  longer  obligatory; 
finally  such  as  join  assemblages  which  question  the  valid- 
ity of  Jewish  marriage  prohibitions,  all  these  are  unfit  to 
perform  any  rabbinical  functions  whatsoever. 

2.  Therefore,  every  God-fearing  Israelite  is  warned  not 
to  have  such  individuals  officiate  at  marriages,  divorces, 
Chalitzah,  and  so  forth. 

3.  Shochtim    and    Soferim    (ritual    slaughterers    and 
scribes)  who  obtain  their  authority  from  such  rabbis  with- 
out having  their  worthiness  and  capability  attested  to  by  a 
rabbi  faithful  to  the  law  are  to  be  considered  as  unau- 
thorized. 

4.  Israelitish  congregations  are  obligated  to  lend  their 
energies  towards  turning  out  of  office  all  such  rabbis  and 
preachers  as  are  designated  in  paragraph  1.     Should  the 
observant  members  of  a  congregation  be  in  the  minority, 
and  therefore  be  unable  to  secure  the   removal  of  such 
rabbis  from  office,  they  are  obligated  to  provide  for  the 
proper  administration  of  rabbinical  functions,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  strict  requirements  of  the  law,  even  though 
this  compel  them  to  sever  their  connection  with  the  con- 
gregation.1 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXV  (1871),  780-1. 


458  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

This  protest  is  animated  by  the  same  spirit  as  appeared 
in  the  condemnation  of  Geiger  by  the  Lissa  rabbinate  and 
in  the  famous  protest  of  the  one  hundred  and  sixteen 
rabbis  against  the  Brunswick  conference,  well-nigh  thirty 
years  previously;  nor  is  it  surprising.  The  standpoint  of 
orthodoxy  is  fixed.  Thirty  years,  or  thirty  centuries  bring 
no  change.  Any  infringement  is  illegal.  But  protests 
like  this  are  vain.  They  are  mere  card-houses  erected 
against  the  onrush  of  the  forces  of  progress.  The  rab- 
binical marriage  and  divorce  legislation  is  Oriental  and 
out  of  all  harmony  with  Western  life.  This  legislation 
must  be  largely  the  concern  of  the  civil  courts ;  the  rab- 
binical tribunals  must  give  way  to  these  courts  wherever 
Jews  have  become  incorporated  in  the  body  politic  of  the 
State.  Holdheim  struck  the  true  note  when,  as  early  as 
1845,  he  insisted  on  a  reform  all  along  the  line  of  the 
Jewish  marriage  law  and  an  adjustment  thereof  to  the 
laws  of  the  land.  This  has  been  practically  accomplished. 
Occidental  life  has  legislated  chalitzah  and  the  rabbinical 
divorce  out  of  existence,  all  protests  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. 

When  the  Augsburg  Synod  adjourned,  many  present 
must  have  felt  that  it  would  have  no  successor. 1  The 
two  synods  failed  to  realize  the  hopes  of  their  projectors. 
The  time  was  evidently  not  yet  ripe  for  such  a  movemnt. 
There  were  too  many  differences  among  Jews.  No  steps 
were  taken  after  adjournment  of  the  synods  to  spread 
actively  the  resolutions  adopted.  True,  the  proceedings 
were  printed  after  the  lapse  of  a  considerable  interval,  but 

1  In  1891  Emil  Lehmann,  of  Dresden,  published  a  series  of  articles 
entitled  "Letters  to  a  Friend/'  In  the  third  of  this  series  he  urged 
the  convening  of  a  third  synod  to  consider  the  many  vexing  problems, 
religious  and  other,  of  German  Jewry.  He  claimed  that  not  only  the 
internal  confusion  but  also  the  external  situation  caused  by  the 
attacks  of  anti-Semitism  demanded  urgently  the  full  and  wise  con- 
sideration of  the  best  minds  among  the  Jews  in  convention  assem- 
bled. A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LV  (1891),  159. 


THE  LEIPZIG  AND  AUGSBURG  SYNODS  459 

beyond  this  no  active  propaganda  were  made.  Yet  al- 
though as  far  as  permanent  results  are  concerned  these  two 
German  synods  must  be  written  down  a  failure,  still  has 
the  synod  idea  persisted  and  come  to  the  fore  frequently 
since  then.  At  that  very  time  (1871),  American  leaders  of 
religious  thought  were  agitating  for  a  synod;  again,  in 
1881,  Isaac  M.  Wise  submitted  a  report  to  the  Rabbinical 
Literary  Association  advocating  the  formation  of  a  synod. 
The  most  recent  agitation  of  the  subject  has  been  witnessed 
at  three  sessions  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis  (1904-05-06).  *  Opinions  are  still  divided  as  to 
the  advisability  of  the  establishment  of  such  an  institution. 
Its  opponents  fear  that  it  will  resolve  itself  into  an  eccle- 
siastical court  that  will  institute  trials  for  heresy  if  its  be- 
hests are  not  obeyed.  This  is  a  vain  fear,  for  heresy  trials 
are  un- Jewish  in  the  first  place,  and  in  the  second  place  they 
belong  to  the  Middle  Ages,  not  to  the  twentieth  century. 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  in  the  present  unsettled  state 
of  Jewish  opinion  on  many  vital  points,  owing  to  the  trans- 
ition from  the  old  to  the  new,  there  is  great  need  for  a 
central  organization  of  this  kind  composed  of  rabbinical 
and  lay  delegates,  whose  power  shall  be  not  to  loose  or  to 
bind,  but  to  pronounce  judgments  on  controverted  points 
of  doctrine  and  practice.  The  Synod  "shall  not  be  an 
ecclesiastical  court  with  power  to  dictate  to  the  individual 
conscience,  to  restrict  or  interfere  with  freedom  of  either 
belief  or  conduct.  The  purpose  of  such  a  synod  in  our 
judgment  is  to  guide  by  a  consensus  of  academic  and 
practical  wisdom  and  thereby  educate  Jewish  public 
opinion."1  Some  such  purpose  undoubtedly  animated  the 
rabbis  who  convened  these  German  synods;  Jewish  life  is 

1  See    the   pamphlet    '  *  Views   on   the    Synod, ' '    a   compilation    of 
opinions  on  the  Synod  pro  and  con  compiled  by  a  Committee  of  the 
Conference.     At  the  Indianapolis  Conference  in  July,  1906,  a  ma- 
jority declared  against  the  advisability  of  the  formation  of  a  Synod. 

2  From  Majority  report  of  the  Committee  at  Louisville  Meeting  of 
Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  Year  Book  No.  XIV,  147. 


460  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

tending  towards  centralization  and  organization,  and  the 
institution  of  a  synod  on  American  soil  would  but  carry 
out  established  precedents  in  the  history  of  the  reform 
movement,  so  many  of  whose  ideas  and  plans,  born  in  Ger- 
man Jewish  brains,  have  found  their  realization  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  indeed  not  beyond  the  bounds  of 
probability,  judging  from  the  development  of  Judaism  in 
the 'great  Republic,  that  a  latter  day  Keneset  Haggedalali, 
a  new  Great  Synod,  will  greet  the  light  of  day  within  its 
boundaries. 


CHAPTER  XII 
EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

ALTHOUGH  the  Jewish  reform  movement  had  its  recep- 
tion in  Germany,  and  that  country  will  always  be  looked 
upon  as  its  birthplace,  yet  has  this  movement  found  its  full, 
free,  and  logical  development  in  the  United  States.  It  was, 
in  most  instances,  German  preachers  and  thinkers  who, 
in  the  early  days,  shaped  the  course  of  the  American  con- 
gregations in  their  adoption  of  the  principles  of  reform. 
There  is  therefore  a  direct  connection  between  the  practical 
outworking  of  these  principles  in  the  United  States  and 
their  primal  enunciation  in  Germany.  The  very  first  effort 
at  reform,  made  some  years  before  any  of  the  great  Euro- 
pean leaders  .arrived  in  the  United  States  seems  to  indicate 
this.  In  the  year  1824,  forty-seven  members  of  the  congre- 
gation Beth  Elohim  of  Charleston,  in  the  State  of  South 
Carolina,  being  dissatisfied  with  the  services,  memorialized 
the  vestry  to  have  the  ritual  reformed.  This  memorial  con- 
tains a  lengthy  quotation  from  the  Frankfurter  Journal, 
thus  showing  that  the  Americans  were  influenced  by  the  re- 
ligious agitations  that  were  stirring  the  Jews  of  Germany 
so  profoundly  at  that  time. *  As  the  first  document  of  this 
kind  it  is  interesting,  and  the  main  portions  are  herewith 
presented : 

' 'Your  memorialists  seek  no  other  end  than  the  future 
welfare  and  respectability  of  the  nation.  As  members  of 

*B.  A.  Elzas,  "The  first  Confirmation  ceremony  in  the  American 
Synagogue/'  Jewish  Tribune,  Portland,  Oregon,  May  18,  1906,  p.  17. 
Ibid.  "New  Material  on  the  First  Eeform  Movement  in  America," 
in  Literary  Supplement  to  the  American  Hebrew,  New  York,  Dec.  7, 
1906. 

461 


462  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  great  family  of  Israel,  they  cannot  consent  to  place  be- 
fore their  children  examples  which  are  only  calculated  to 
darken  the  mind  and  withhold  from  the  rising  generation 
the  more  rational  means  of  worshiping  the  true  God. 

'  '  It  is  to  this,  therefore,  your  memorialists  would,  in  the 
first  place,  invite  the  serious  attention  of  your  honorable 
body.  By  causing  the  Hazan  or  reader  to  repeat  in  Eng- 
lish such  part  of  the  Hebrew  prayers  as  may  be  deemed 
necessary,  it  is  confidently  believed  that  the  congregation 
generally  would  be  more  forcibly  impressed  with  the  ne- 
cessity of  divine  worship,  and  the  moral  obligations  which 
they  owe  to  themselves  and  their  Creator;  while  such  a 
course  would  lead  to  more  decency  and  decorum  during 
the  time  they  are  engaged  in  the  performance  of  religious 
duties.  It  is  not  every  one  who  has  the  means,  and  many 
have  not  the  time,  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  and  consequently  become  enlightened  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  Judaism.  What,  then,  is  the  course  pursued  in 
all  religious  societies  for  the  purpose  of  disseminating  the 
peculiar  tenets  of  their  faith  among  the  poor  and  unin- 
formed ? 

"The  principles  of  their  religion  are  expounded  to  them 
from  the  pulpit  in  language  that  they  understand ;  for  in- 
stance, in  the  Catholic,  the  German  and  the  French 
Protestant  Churches;  by  this  means  the  ignorant  part  of 
mankind  attend  their  places  of  worship  with  some  profit 
to  their  morals,  and  even  improvement  to  their  minds ;  they 
return  from  them  with  hearts  turned  to  piety,  and  with 
feelings  elevated  by  their  sacred  character.  In  this  con- 
sists the  beauty  of  religion— when  men  are  invoked  by 
its  divine  spirit  to  the  practice  of  virtue  and  morality.  .  .  . 

"With  regard  to  such  parts  of  the  service  as  it  is  de- 
sired should  undergo  this  change,  your  memorialists  would 
strenuously  recommend  that  the  most  solemn  portions  be 
retained,  and  everything  superfluous  excluded;  and  that 
the  principal  parts,  and,  if  possible,  all  that  is  read  in 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  463 

Hebrew,  should  also  be  read  in  English  (that  being  the 
language  of  the  country),  so  as  to  enable  every  member  of 
the  congregation  fully  to  understand  each  part  of  the 
service. 

"In  submitting  this  article  of  cur  memorial  to  your 
honorable  body,  your  memorialists  are  well  aware  of  the 
difficulties  with  which  they  must  contend  before  they  will 
be  enabled  to  accomplish  this  desirable  end ;  but  while  they 
would  respectfully  invite  the  attention  of  your  honorable 
body  to  this  part  of  their  memorial,  they  desire  to  rest  the 
propriety  and  expediency  of  such  a  measure  solely  upon 
the  reason  by  which  it  may  be  maintained.  .  .  . 

' '  Your  memorialists  would  next  call  the  particular  atten- 
tion of  your  honorable  body  to  the  absolute  necessity  of 
abridging  the  service  generally.  They  have  reflected  se- 
riously upon  its  present  length,  and  are  confident  that  this 
is  one  of  the  principal  causes  why  so  much  of  it  is  hastily 
and  improperly  hurried  over.  .  .  . 

' '  According  to  the  present  method  of  reading  the  Parasa 
(Pentateuch),  it  affords  to  the  hearer  neither  instruction 
nor  entertainment,  unless  he  be  competent  to  read,  as  well 
as  comprehend,  the  Hebrew  language.  But  if,  like  all 
other  ministers,  our  reader  would  make  a  chapter  or  verse 
the  subject  of  an  English  discourse  once  a  week,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  the  year  the  people  would,  at  all  events,  know 
something  of  that  religion  which  at  present  they  so  little 
regard."1 

This  memorial  was  signed  by  forty-seven  members  of  the 
congregation.  It  was  emphatically  rejected  by  the  vestry 
without  discussion.  This  summary  action  caused  some 
who  had  signed  the  petition  to  resign  from  the  congrega- 
tion. Twelve  of  their  number,  chief  among  whom  were 
Isaac  Harby,  David  N.  Carvalho,  Aaron  Phillips,  Michael 
Lazarus,  Morris  Goldsmith.  Isaac  Mordecai,  Abraham 

*A.  J.  Moses,  "The  Origin  of  Jewish  Reform  in  America," 
American  Hebrew  for  Jan.  29,  1886. 


464  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Moise,  Isaac  N.  Cardozo  and  E.  P.  Cohen,  founded  a  new 
congregation,  on  November  21,  1824,  which  they  styled 
"The  Reformed  Society  of  Israelites."1  By  July,  1826, 
the  number  had  increased  to  over  fifty.  The  formation  of 
this  first  reformed  congregation  on  this  side  the  Atlantic, 
then,  had  its  cause  in  the  feeling  that  the  expression  of  the 
faith  was  not  in  accord  with  the  changed  needs  and  condi- 
tions of  the  people.  It  was  a  movement  from  within;  it 
was  the  people  themselves  who,  longing  for  an  intelligible 
service,  sought  to  change  the  established  form  of  worship. 
In  the  statement  they  issued,  after  the  secession  from  the 
congregation,  they  declared  that  it  was  their  purpose  to 
discard  the  observance  of  all  such  ceremonies  as  had  their 
origin  altogether  and  alone  in  rabbinical  Judaism,  such  as 
are  not  founded  on  the  moral  legislation  of  Moses,  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  flatly  oppose  in  many  respects  the  spirit, 
the  beauty,  and  sublimity  which  so  singly  distinguish  that 
legislation  and  the  lofty  piety  and  virtue  that  it  teaches.2 

It  was  not  merely  an  aesthetic  impulse  that  swayed  these 
men  in  their  desire  for  a  reform  of  the  public  worship,  but 
there  was  also  a  question  of  principle.  There  were  certain 
articles  in  the  commonly  accepted  creed  to  which  they  could 
not  give  assent.  In  formulating  the  creed  that  expressed 
their  beliefs  they  omitted  the  sections  of  the  traditional 
Maimonidean  creed  that  declared  the  belief  in  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah,  the  personal  leader,  and  the  bodily  resur- 
rection. The  creed,  as  by  them  adopted,  consisted  of  ten 
articles,  as  follows : 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  God  Almighty 
(blessed  be  "his  name!)  is  the  Creator  and  Governor  of  all 
creation ;  and  that  he  alone  has  made,  does  make,  and  will 
make,  all  things. 

1  B.  A.  Elzas,  The  Jews  of  South  Carolina,  147-165.     Philadelphia, 
1905. 

2  M.   Mayer,   ' f  Geschichte   des   religiosen   Umschwunges   unter   den 
Israeliten  Nord-Amerikas, "  Sinai,  vol.  I,  p.  105.     Baltimore,  1856. 


BEFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  465 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  Creator  (blessed 
be  his  name ! )  is  only  One  in  Unity ;  to  which  there  is  no 
resemblance;  and  that  he  alone  has  been,  is,  and  will 
be  God. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  Creator  (blessed 
be  his  name ! )  is  not  corporeal,  nor  to  be  comprehended  by 
any  understanding  capable  cf  comprehending  only  what  is 
corporeal ;  and  that  there  is  nothing  like  him  in  the  uni- 
verse. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  Creator  (blessed 
be  his  name !)  is  the  only  true  object  of  adoration,  and  that 
no  other  being  whatsoever  ought  to  be  worshiped. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  soul  of  man  is 
breathed  into  him  by  God,  and  is  therefore  immortal. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  Creator  (blessed 
be  his  name!)  knows  all  things,  and  that  he  will  reward 
those  who  observe  his  commands,  and  punish  those  who 
transgress  them. 

' '  I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  laws  of  God,  as 
delivered  by  Moses  in  the  Ten  Commandments,  are  the 
only  true  foundations  of  piety  towards  the  Almighty  and 
of  morality  among  men. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  morality  is  essen- 
tially connected  with  religion,  and  that  good  faith  towards 
all  mankind  is  among  the  most  acceptable  offerings  to  the 
Deity. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  love  of  God  is 
the  highest  duty  of  his  creatures,  and  that  the  pure  and 
upright  heart  is  the  chosen  temple  of  Jehovah. 

"I  believe,  with  a  perfect  faith,  that  the  Creator  (blessed 
be  his  name!)  is  the  only  true  Redeemer  of  all  his  children, 
and  that  he  will  spread  the  worship  of  his  name  over  the 
whole  earth." 

From  the  very  beginning  the  members  of  the  congrega- 
tions gave  public  evidence  of  the  faith  that  was  in  them. 
In  their  services  they  made  radical  departures  from  the 
30 


466  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

traditional  ritual.  On  Sabbath  eve  the  service  opened 
with  the  reading  of  the  ninety-second  and  ninety-third 
Psalms  in  English;  then  followed  the  recitation  of  the 
ywin  Hebrew  and  English;  the  JDGP  rO"O,  greatly  abbre- 
viated, in  English,  with  the  exception  of  the  11V3  ^K, 
which  was  recited  in  Hebrew  and  English;  the  ir^y 
prayer  in  English.  Thereupon  a  chapter  from  one  of  the 
prophetical  books  was  read,  the  congregation  sang  a  hymn, 
the  reader  offered  an  original  prayer,  and  closed  the  service 
with  the  priestly  benediction. 

The  Sabbath  morning  service  was  opened  with  an  Eng- 
lish hymn  and  a  prayer  by  the  reader;  then  followed  the 
thirty-third  Psalm,  the  prayers  HD&W  M5>K  and  ntsnp  nnK 
in  English,  the  VDtt>,  the  JDB>  rD"Q,and  selected  verses  from 
the  Psalms  in  Hebrew  and  English;  the  prayer  for  the 
country,  the  reading  from  the  scroll  of  the  law,  the  sermon, 
an  English  hymn,  a  prayer,  and  the  priestly  benediction. 
On  the  holidays  special  prayers,  appropriate  to  the  occa- 
sion, were  inserted. 1  There  was  instrumental  music.  The 
congregation  worshiped  with  uncovered  heads. 

This  first  reformed  congregation  existed  but  a  few  years. 
It  had  no  leader.  Laymen  delivered  the  addresses  and 
conducted  the  services.  Good  as  were  their  intentions, 
and  talented  as  some  of  them  were,  yet  they  had  not  the 
training  to  carry  on  the  work;  besides,  there  was  bitter 
opposition  from  without.  These  reasons  led  to  the  disso- 
lution of  the  society;  but  the  cause  of  reform,  though 
temporarily  in  abeyance,  was  to  awaken  into  stronger  and 
fuller  life  in  the  mother  congregation  itself,  to  which  a 
number  of  the  reformers  returned. 

In  the  year  1836  the  Eev.  Gustav  Poznanski  was  elected 
preacher  and  reader  of  the  congregation  Beth  Elohim. 
While  in  Hamburg  he  had  been  imbued  with  the  spirit  of 
the  Hamburg  Temple  congregation,  the  foremost  exponent 
of  the  reform  movement  in  Europe,  and  after  entering  upon 

1  Sinai,  vol.  I,  p.  172. 


BEFOBM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  £67 

his  charge  in  Charleston,  he  bent  all  his  energies  towards 
introducing  reforms  into  the  service.  The  synagogue  hav- 
ing been  destroyed  by  fire  in  the  great  conflagration  of 
1838,  which  laid  a  large  portion  of  the  city  waste,  a  new 
building— at  the  time  the  finest  Jewish  house  of  worship  in 
the  country— was  erected.  While  it  was  building,  a  peti- 
tion signed  by  thirty-eight  members,  and  requesting  that 
an  organ  be  placed  in  the  new  structure,  was  granted  by 
the  congregation  in  meeting  assembled.  The  petition  was 
accompanied  by  the  written  opinion  of  the  minister  to  the 
effect  that  such  a  step  was  lawful.  As  is  unfortunately 
always  the  case,  the  innovation  caused  strife  and  conten- 
tion. Opposition  on  the  part  of  those  wedded  to  the  old 
order  of  things  was  a  feature  in  all  the  reform  movements 
in  the  congregations.  Religious  reforms  always  arouse  the 
bitterness  of  bigotry  and  kindle  the  flame  of  fanaticism. 
This  is  deplorable  enough  when  confined  to  inner  conten- 
tions, but  at  times  the  quarrels  engendered  were  referred  to 
the  civil  courts,  as  was  the  case  in  Charleston, *  a  DPfi  Stf'H 
indeed. 

At  the  dedication  services  held  on  March  19,  1841,  the 
minister  in  his  sermon  said : ' '  This  country  is  our  Palestine, 
this  city  our  Jerusalem,  this  house  of  God  our  temple." 
When,  two  years  later,  Mr.  Poznanski  advocated  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  second  day  holidays,  as  not  being  Biblical  in 
origin,  a  bitter  contest  was  again  precipitated,  wEich  lasted 
for  a  number  of  years.  The  outcome  of  the  struggle  was 
a  victory  for  the  reform  party;  the  second  day  holidays 
were  abolished,  and  other  minor  reforms  introduced  into 
the  service.  A 

The  story  of  the  Charleston  movement  has  been  given 
somewhat  at  length,  since  that  congregation  inaugurated 
Jewish  reform  in  the  United  States.  Reforms  in  greater  or 
less  degree  have  been  so  commonly  introduced  by  the  con- 
gregations of  the  country  that  all  that  is  possible  here  is 

1  The  Occident,  X,  226.    Elzas,  The  Jews  of  South  Carolina,  210. 


468  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

to  give  the  account  of  the  movement  in  its  general  aspects 
rather  than  the  history  of  special  congregations.  How- 
ever, it  will  not  be  amiss  to  state  at  what  time  and  under 
what  circumstances,  the  older  congregations  ranged  them- 
selves on  the  side  of  reform,  particularly  since  Judaism  in 
the  United  States  is  congregational.  The  congregation  is 
autonomous.  There  is  no  chief  rabbi,  no  consistory,  no 
synod,  no  assembly ; *  each  congregation  is  responsible  to  it- 
self, and  hence  it  lies  with  the  congregation,  and  it  alone, 
to  determine  what  its  policy  shall  be. 

The  Early  Reform  Congregations 

With  the  exception  of  the  Charleston  congregation,  there 
were  no  steps  taken  anywhere  in  the  country  in  the  interest 
of  the  reform  movement  before  the  year  1840.  In  all  the 
congregations  the  services  were  conducted  along  traditional 
lines. 2  In  truth,  with  but  few  exceptions,  the  reformed 
congregations  represent  a  growth,  a  gradual  adoption  of 
various  reforms,  in  the  ritual  and  the  congregational  polity.3 

It  is  noticeable  that  such  early  congregations  as  have 
from  the  date  of  their  organization  been  reformed,  grew  out 
of  societies,  ' '  Reform- Vereine, ' '  which  were  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  expression  to  the  doctrines  of  reform. 
When  these  societies  became  strong  enough  they  organized 
themselves  into  congregations.  Such  societies  were  the 
foundation  of  the  congregations  Har  Sinai  of  Baltimore, 
Emanuel  of  New  York,  Keneseth  Israel  of  Philadelphia, 
and  Sinai  of  Chicago. 

1  Of  late  years,  however,  many  of  the  foremost  leaders  in  American 
Jewry,  recognizing  the  evils  of  individualistic  disorganization,  have 
urged  the  necessity  of  the  formation  of  a  central  representative 
organization  or  assembly;  see  supra,  459. 

a  For  a  vivid  description  of  conditions  in  American  Jewish  congre- 
gations before  the  year  1848  see  Reminiscences  by  Isaac  M.  Wise, 
71  ff.  Cincinnati,  1901. 

*Cf.  Voorsanger,  The  Chronicles  of  Emanuel,  60-94.  San  Fran- 
cisco, 1900. 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  469 

The  first  congregation  organized  as  a  reformed  congre- 
gation was  the  Har  Sinai  of  Baltimore.  In  April,  1842,  a 
number  of  young  men,  influenced  by  the  Hamburg  Temple 
movement,  formed  themselves  into  a  society  known  as  the 
Har  Sinai  Yerein ;  they  adopted  the  Hamburg  Temple 
Prayer-Book  for  their  services,  which  were  conducted  by 
several  of  their  own  number.  Three  years  later,  in  1845, 
the  Emanuel  congregation  of  New  York,1  at  present  the 
largest  congregation  in  the  land,  was  organized  by  a  number 
of  young  men  whose  purpose  may  be  gathered  from  the 
following  words  addressed  to  Mr.  Poznanski:  "We  fully 
recognize  the  necessity  of  a  complete  reform  of  the  Jewish 
service,  as  at  present  conducted  in  the  local  German  congre- 
gations; we  have  therefore  formed  ourselves  into  a  society 
which  we  have  called  '  Cultus-Verein, '  and  have  resolved  to 
provide  ourselves  with  such  means  and  to  seek  such  instruc- 
tion and  information  as  shall  enable  us  later  to  conduct,  in 
a  congregation  to  be  formed  from  our  society,  such  a  service 
as,  freed  from  abuses  tolerated  hitherto,  shall  arouse  and 
quicken  devotion,  and  thus  uplift  the  heart  to  God. ' ' 2 
The  congregation  was  the  direct  outgrowth  of  the  l '  Cultus- 
Verein."  Its  first  service  was  conducted  on  the  eve  of 
Passover,  5605  (1845),  in  a  room  in  a  private  house;  the 
sermon  was  preached  by  the  Kev.  Dr.  Leo  Merzbacher,  who 
continued  as  the  rabbi  of  the  young  congregation  until  the 
time  of  his  death  in  October,  1856.  The  next  congregation 
to  place  itself  in  line  was  that  of  Albany,  New  York.  In 
the  year  1846  this  congregation  had  elected  as  its  minister 
Isaac  M.  Wise,  who  had  recently  arrived  in  the  country. 
Under  his  leadership  a  number  of  reforms  were  introduced, 
notably  the  mixed  choir,  family  pews  and  the  confirmation 
ceremony.  At  the  service  on  New  Year's  Day,  1850,  Dr. 
Wise  was  forcibly  ejected  from  his  pulpit  by  some  oppo- 

1  Myer  Stern,  History  of  Temple  Emanuel  of  New  York,  14.  New 
York,  1895. 

*  Sinai,  vol.  I,  p.  201. 


470  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

nents  of  his  reform  ideas.  The  primary  cause  of  this  act  of 
violence  lay  in  the  following  circumstance.  In  the  spring 
of  1850  a  public  debate  had  been  arranged  to  take  place 
in  Charleston  between  Mr.  Poznanski  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Raphall  of  New  York,  a  champion  of  orthodoxy,  on  the 
subject  of  the  justification  of  the  reforms  that  had  been 
introduced  by  the  former.  Dr.  Wise,  who  happened  to  be 
in  Charleston  at  the  time,  was  present,  and  took  part  in 
the  discussion.  Dr.  Raphall  put  the  direct  question  to  him 
as  to  whether  he  believed  in  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and 
the  bodily  resurrection.  Dr.  Wise  answered,  No.  When 
he  returned  to  Albany  the  orthodox  element  in  his  congre- 
gation was  not  slow  in  making  its  dissatisfaction  felt.  The 
opposition  culminated  in  the  act  of  violence  mentioned. 
As  a  result,  the  friends  and  supporters  of  the  rabbi  with- 
drew and  organized  themselves  into  a  reformed  congrega- 
tion, the  Anshe  Emeth. 1 

For  the  next  step  in  the  story  of  the  reformed  congrega- 
tions we  must  direct  our  attention  to  what  was  then  the 
western  settlement  of  the  country.  The  oldest  congrega- 
tions in  the  West  were  those  of  Cincinnati.  In  1824  a  num- 
ber of  young  Englishmen  organized  the  first  Jewish  con- 
gregation west  of  the  Alleghanies,  the  Bene  Israel ; 2  in  1842 
a  company  of  young  Germans  formed  themselves  into  the 
congregation  Bene  Yeshurun. 8  Both  these  congregations 
were  at  their  origin  orthodox,  but  with  the  election  of  Dr. 
Wise  as  rabbi  of  Bene  Yeshurun  in  1854,  and  of  Dr.  Max 
Lilienthal  as  rabbi  of  Bene  Israel  in  1855,  these  two  congre- 
gations designated  their  sympathy  with  the  reform  move- 
ment. 

The  city  of  Philadelphia  was,  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  de- 

1  Beminiscences,  by  Isaac  M.  Wise,  149,  155  ff . 

'Philipson,  The  Oldest  Jewish  Congregation  in  the  West.  Cin- 
cinnati, 1894. 

'The  History  of  K.  K.  Bene  Yeshurun  from  the  date  of  its  Or- 
ganization. Cincinnati,  1892. 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  471 

cades  of  the  century,  the  stronghold  of  orthodox  Judaism, 
owing  largely  to  the  prestige  and  influence  of  the  Rev.  Isaac 
Leeser,  minister  of  the  Mickveh  Israel  congregation  of  that 
city,  and  the  foremost  representative  of  orthodox  Judaism 
in  the  country.  Any  effort  at  reform  in  that  community 
naturally  met  with  the  greatest  obstacles,  and  the  pages  of 
the  Occident,  the  organ  of  Mr.  Leeser,  present  a  vivid  pic- 
ture of  the  opposition  superinduced  by  every  step  towards 
reform  anywhere  in  the  country.  Yet  the  spirit  was 
aroused,  and  made  itself  felt  even  in  Philadelphia.  There, 
too,  as  in  Baltimore  and  New  York,  some  young  men  had 
organized  a  "  Reform- Gesellschaft. "  Few  in  numbers,  but 
strong  in  purpose,  they  maintained  their  organization  for 
some  years,  until  in  1856  they  united  with  one  of  the  exist- 
ing congregations  of  the  city,  the  Keneseth  Israel,  which 
had  been  formed  in  1847,  and  in  the  intervening  years  had 
also  introduced  a  few  minor  reforms  into  its  service.  From 
the  union  of  this  congregation  with  the  Reform-Gesell- 
schaft  in  1856  the  present  Keneseth  Israel  Reform  Congre- 
gation sprang. x 

In  1858  some  members  of  the  Anshe  Maariv  congrega- 
tion of  Chicago,  being  dissatisfied  with  the  services  and  the 
course  of  the  congregation,  formed  a  society  which  they 
called  the  ' '  Ref ormverein, "  with  the  avowed  intention  of 
organizing  themselves  into  a  congregation  as  soon  as  their 
number  reached  thirty.  At  the  first  public  session  of  the 
society  held  on  April  17,  1858,  the  secretary,  B.  Felsenthal, 
afterwards  the  first  rabbi  of  the  newly  formed  congrega- 
tion, addressed  the  company  on  the  object  of  the  society. 
In  the  course  of  his  remarks  he  said :  ' '  How  can  the  abuses 
which  have  crept  into  our  religion  be  corrected  ?  We  must 
separate  the  eternal  and  indestructible  kernel  of  Judaism 
from  its  tattered  encasings,  must  remove  the  antiquated 

lft Outlines  of  the  History  of  the  Eeform  Congregation  Keneseth 
Israel/'  5,  in  Year  Boole  of  Reform  Congregation  Keneseth  Israel 
for  1890-91. 


472         '     THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

notions,  and  make  the  service  fruitful  and  intelligible  by 
the  use  of  a  language  understood  by  all.  Not  two  per  cent, 
of  the  members  of  any  Jewish  congregation  are  sufficiently 
conversant  with  the  Hebrew  language  to  invest  the  serv- 
ice with  dignity  or  to  clothe  it  with  intelligibility;  the 
whole  service  has  been  degraded  to  the  level  of  a  dead 
formula.  .  .  . 

"A  small  number  of  men  have  here  combined  to  arouse 
new  life  in  Jewish  hearts.  A  spark  at  least  is  still  smold- 
ering beneath  the  ashes  of  indifference,  and  this  spark  must 
be  fanned  into  flame.  The  Jews  will  not  permit  the  work 
of  their  fathers,  that  has  existed  thousands  of  years,  to  be 
destroyed:  they  will  show  the  world  by  new  progressive 
movements  that  they  are  still  the  chosen  people,  destined 
to  become  the  Messiah  of  the  nations  of  the  earth. ' ' * 

Two  years  later,  in  1860,  the  society  formed  itself  into 
the  Sinai  congregation.  The  preamble2  to  the  constitu- 
tion adopted  by  this  congregation  expresses  the  purpose  and 
object  of  a  reformed  congregation  so  clearly  that  it  may 
well  be  given  at  length : 

11  Whereas,  there  appears  to  exist  among  Israelites  a 
large  degree  of  indifference  in  religious  matters,  threatening 
to  drag  life  more  and  more  to  materialism  and  degradation, 
and  stifling  all  nobility  of  sentiments,  all  sympathy  for 
higher  pursuits,  all  appreciation  of  the  more  sacred  boons 
of  humanity,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  Jewish  religious 
life,  clinging  to  obsolete  ideas  and  maintaining  antiquated 
usages,  has  taken  its  course  in  a  direction  of  which  we 
cannot  approve;  and, 

"Whereas,  we  share  the  conviction  that  a  truly  religious 
life  is  the  most  powerful  agent  to  create  noble  thoughts  and 
good  morals ;  and, 

"Whereas,  especially  the  Jewish  religion,  having  a  past 
of  four  thousand  years,  most  glorious  and  eventful,  is  evi- 
dently destined  in  the  future  too  to  act  a  most  important 

1  Sinai,  vol.  IV,  p.  154.  2  IUd.,  vol.  VI,  p.  162. 


EEFOBM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  473 

part  in  the  development  of  mankind,  and  in  its  onward 
course  to  the  lofty  position  of  the  Messianic  time  coming : 

"  Therefore,  a  number  of  Israelites  have  associated  with 
the  avowed  intention  of  fostering  the  inestimable  inherit- 
ance of  our  fathers,  of  restoring  the  original  spirit  of  sim- 
plicity, purity,  and  sublimity  in  Judaism,  and  thus  to  per- 
petuate the  same  and  secure  its  duration. 

"The  means  of  attaining  this  sacred  object  are  chiefly 
as  follows: 

"  1.  A  divine  service,  which,  without  divesting  the  same 
of  its  specific  Jewish  character,  shall  be  in  consistence  with 
the  laws  of  reason  and  truth,  and  which,  in  its  form,  shall 
be  such  as  will  meet  the  demands  of  our  time,  claiming 
public  instruction  from  the  pulpit  as  a  part  of  the  same. 

"2.  A  sound  religious  education  for  the  rising  genera- 
tion, by  sustaining  a  school  in  which  at  least  a  thorough  in- 
struction in  religion,  Hebrew,  and  the  branches  connected 
therewith,  be  imparted— a  school  inspiring  the  tender 
hearts  of  the  children  for  Judaism,  and  for  everything  that 
is  good,  just,  and  noble. 

"3.  The  removal  of  usages  and  ceremonies  partly  out- 
lived and  partly  based  upon  erroneous  conceptions,  and  the 
substitution  of  others  more  vital,  more  truthful,  and  more 
apt  to  produce  blissful  effects,  and  the  formation  of  such 
arrangements  and  institutions  which  tend  directly  or  in- 
directly to  promote  and  fulfill  the  objects  of  religion  and 
to  advance  its  professors  to  a  higher  stage  of  perfection." 

These  are  the  most  important  congregational  movements 
in  the  early  history  of  Jewish  reform  in  the  United  States. 
Since  I860  the  movement  has  made  great  progress ;  there 
are  but  few  congregations  of  influence  that  have  not  adopted 
reforms  of  some  kind,  some  to  a  greater,  some  to  a  less  ex- 
tent. Even  such  congregations  as  are  considered  conserva- 
tive in  this  country  would  in  European  lands  be  regarded 
as  reformed. 

The  great  recent  influx  of  Russian  Jews  has  increased 


474  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  number  of  orthodox  congregations;  this  accounts  for 
the  increasing  number  of  such  congregations  during  the 
past  two  decades.  However,  even  many  of  these  immi- 
grants, after  living  in  the  country  for  some  time,  affiliate 
themselves  with  reformed  congregations.  The  free  spirit 
of  American  institutions  is  impatient  of  the  restraints  of 
rabbinical  legislation  as  embodied  in  the  Shulchan  Aruk. 
The  descendants  of  the  immigrants,  eyen  in  the  first  genera- 
tion, are  so  affected  by  the  free  school,  the  free  state  and 
the  free  atmosphere  in  which  they  live  and  move  and  have 
their  being,  that  they  can  impossibly  entertain  the  religious 
views  of  their  orthodox  forebears.  Frequently  they  swing 
to  the  opposite  extreme  and  become  outspokenly  irreligious 
and  atheistic.  The  saving  religious  influence  in  the  life  of 
the  young  Russian  Jew  in  America  will  be  the  teachings  of 
reform  that  harmonize  the  faith  with  the  free  surround- 
ings. 

The  Leaders  of  the  Reform  Movement 

Every  movement  among  men,  in  order  to  issue  success- 
fully, requires  ability,  conviction,  and  enthusiasm  in  its 
leaders.  Without  any  doubt,  the  reform  movement  took 
such  firm  hold  in  the  United  States  because  in  its  early 
days  it  was  led  and  directed  by  men  of  great  ability,  strong 
purpose,  deep  conviction,  earnest  enthusiasm,  and  scholarly 
aims.  The  first  attempt  in  Charleston  collapsed  because  it 
was  not  headed  by  a  capable  leader.  The  earnest  men  who 
composed  that  first  "Reformed  Society  of  Israelites" 
failed  to  succeed  because  there  was  no  one  to  direct  them. 
It  was  fortunate  for  the  success  of  the  movement  elsewhere 
that  a  number  of  strong  men,  dissatisfied  with  conditions 
in  Europe  and  despairing  of  accomplishing  their  cherished 
aims  there,  emigrated  to  America  and  shaped  the  policy  of 
the  congregations.  The  people  themselves  were  ready  for 
the  reforms ;  they  had  organized  reform  societies,  but  these 
languished  until  they  were  taken  in  hand  by  the  men  who 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  475 

stand  as  the  true  and  tried  leaders  of  those  formative  days. 
Mentioning  them  in  the  order  of  their  appearance  in  Amer- 
ican Jewish  life,  these  will  ever  be  regarded  as  the  great 
pioneer  preachers  and  workers  in  the  cause  of  reform; 
Max  Lilienthal,  who  arrived  in  New  York  in  1845;  Isaac 
M.  Wise,  who  came  the  following  year,  in  1846;  David 
Einhorn,  whose  work  began  in  Baltimore  in  1855 ;  Samuel 
Adler,  who  was  called  to  New  York  in  1857;  Bernard 
Felsenthal,  whose  Kol  Kore  Bamidbar,  "the  voice  in  the 
wilderness,"  was  raised  in  Chicago  in  1858;  and  Samuel 
Hirsch,  who  took  charge  of  the  congregation  in  Philadel- 
phia in  1866. 

How  clearly  these  men  understood  and  defined  the  issues, 
will  appear  from  words  spoken  or  written  in  those  early 
years  of  their  American  sojourn.  In  one  form  or  another, 
they  express  what  to  them  are  the  essentials  and  character- 
istics of  the  reform  movement.  In  sermons  of  burning  elo- 
quence, or  in  disquisitions  of  calm  reasoning,  they  pub- 
lished forth  the  faith  that  was  in  them. 

Max  Lilienthal  (1814-1882)  arrived  in  America  in  1845. 
He  was  elected  rabbi  of  three  orthodox  congregations  of 
New  York  city,  in  which  capacity  he  served  for  several 
years,  but  severed  the  connection  on  account  of  the  differ- 
ences that  had  arisen  between  his  views  and  those  of  his 
constituencies.  His  opinions  were  changing  and  taking  a 
decided  trend  towards  the  principles  of  reform.  He  was 
one  of  the  most  active  spirits  in  the  organization  of  the 
"Verein  der  Lichtf reunde, "  a  society  formed  in  1849  for 
the  discussion  and  the  spreading  of  the  teachings  of  the  re- 
form movement.  In  a  lecture  delivered  before  this  society  in 
that  year,  he  said :  ' '  The  bridge  between  the  past  and  the 
present  is  broken  off. ' '  He  retired  from  the  ministry  for  a 
number  of  years,  and  opened  a  school.  In  the  year  1854, 
however,  he  again  entered  the  arena  of  active  Jewish  life  by 
writing  for  The  Asmonean;  in  a  number  of  articles  pub- 
lished in  the  columns  of  this  paper,  and  in  The  Israelite, 


476  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

shortly  thereafter,  he  declared  strongly  for  reform.  In 
1855  he  was  elected  rabbi  of  the  congregation  Bene  Israel, 
Cincinnati,  which  office  he  filled  to  the  day  of  his  death. 
He  led  the  congregation  along  the  path  of  reform.  Char- 
acteristic was  the  statement  he  made  shortly  after  assum- 
ing office  in  Cincinnati,  when  refusing  to  conduct  the  tra- 
ditional service  of  lamentation  on  the  ninth  day  of  Ab; 
he  said  that  he  considered  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  a 
reason  for  rejoicing  rather  than  mourning,  as  it  was  the 
cause  of  the  Jews  spreading  all  over  the  world  and  carrying 
the  light  of  monotheism  everywhere.  In  one  of  the  early 
articles  on  reform,  alluded  to  above,  he  wrote: * — 

We  are  tired  of  seeing  men  violating  the  Sabbath  until  they  have 
accumulated  an  independent  fortune,  and  calling  themselves  orthodox 
nevertheless;  we  are  disgusted  at  seeing  men  transgressing  every 
religious  ceremony  in  public  life,  and  yet  clothing  themselves  with 
the  halo  of  sanctifieation.  We  wish  to  see  this  contradiction  solved: 
we  wish  to  know  when  religious  ceremonies  have  to  yield  to  the 
necessities  of  life  and  when  they  have  to  be  kept  at  any  price, 
subjugating  life  and  its  exigencies.  In  a  word,  we  wish  to  know 
what  in  our  law  is  God's  command  and  what  is  the  transient  work  of 
mortal  man.  Such  an  investigation  will  solve  the  contradiction 
between  life  and  religion;  will  raise  the  Mosaic  law  to  its  divine 
purity;  will  do  away  with  all  the  unfounded  conglomerations  of 
different  ages;  and  will  surely  reunite  the  now  distracted  body  of 
Israel  in  peace  and  harmony.  .  .  . 

Eeform  has  tried  and  tries  to  raise  the  dignity  of  our  worship. 
No  one  will  deny  that  the  worship  as  conducted  in  the  old  synagogues 
is  unsatisfactory.  .  .  .  How  many  prayers  are  there  unbecoming  the 
country  we  live  in;  unfit  for  our  mode  of  thinking,  totally  antago- 
nistic to  the  changed  views  and  feelings!  Eeform  tries  to  find  a 
remedy  for  all  these  abuses  and  to  make  the  house  of  the  Lord  a 
house  of  true  prayer  and  devotion.  .  .  . 

Whether  agreed  to  or  not,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  belief  in  a  great 
many  things,  that  fifty  years  ago  were  considered  holy  and  sacred, 
has  been  greatly  shaken.  No  one  will  be  quieted  by  such  sentences 
as  "the  Minhag  of  Israel  is  as  binding  as  the  law  of  Moses."  Men 
of  learning  and  profound  reasoning  have  clearly  shown  the  historical 
development  of  so  many  of  our  ceremonies,  and  the  belief  that  the 

1  The  Asmonean,  vol.  X  (1854),  p.  85. 


BEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  477 

rabbinical  law,  from  A  to  Z,  has  come  down  from  Sinai,  has  totally 
disappeared.  Scientific  researches  have  proved  that  all  nations  and 
times  have  added  to  the  store  of  our  religious  observances,  and  that 
all  therefore  cannot  be  as  holy  as  the  Bible.  Further  researches  will 
restore  our  religion  to  its  primitive  purity  and  simplicity;  will 
remove  each  and  every  contest;  and  unite  us  again  in  the  firm  belief 
in  the  Holy  One,  for  whom  our  fathers  suffered  and  for  whom  also 
we,  their  descendants,  are  ready  to  make  every  sacrifice.  .  .  .  We  are 
no  reformers  from  inclination,  no  reformers  for  fashion's  sake,  but 
reformers  from  conviction.  We  do  not  belong  to  that  frivolous  or 
arrogant  class  that  do  away  and  abolish  because  it  suits  them  just 
now.  No;  what  we  assert  we  intend  to  prove;  and  where  we  shall 
move  the  abolition  of  any  ceremony,  we  shall  not  do  it  without 
showing  that  the  religious  codes  themselves  entitle  us  to  demand 
such  a  change  and  such  a  reform. 

Isaac  M.  Wise  (1819-1900)  was  the  great  organizer  and 
unifier.  His  mind  was  eminently  of  the  constructive  order ; 
he  translated  theory  into  actuality  and  called  institutions 
into  being  which  attest  the  living  power  of  progressive  Juda- 
ism. From  the  moment  almost  of  his  landing  on  these 
shores  he  became  a  power  in  American  Judaism.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that,  more  than  any  other  man,  he  stamped 
his  individuality  upon  the  history  and  development  of  Jew- 
ish life  in  the  United  States.  His  is  the  most  prominent 
name  in  American  Jewry.  His  activity  of  over  half  a  cen- 
tury as  organizer,  editor,  preacher,  educator,  is  part  of  the 
history  of  the  reform  movement  whose  untiring  advocate  he 
was  from  the  very  beginning.  He  was  the  embodiment  of 
the  free  democratic  spirit.  For  over  fifty  years  he  was  tire- 
lessly active  in  the  cause  of  freedom  in  religion.  For  him 
American  Judaism  represented  a  new  phase  in  the  history 
of  the  ancestral  faith.  Undismayed,  unafraid,  idealistic, 
optimistic,  he  preached,  wrote  and  taught  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  the  principles  of  prophetic  Judaism  as  re-inter- 
preted by  the  theology  of  the  reform  movement.  In  an 
article  written  in  the  year  1854,  he  said :  * 

Our  religion  contains  better  elements  than   a  mere  controversial 

1  The  Israelite,  vol.  I  (1854),  p.  20. 


478  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

and  casuistical  rabbinism,  and  these  better  elements  must  be  con- 
sidered the  primary  cause  of  its  self-preservation.  The  Jew  had  the 
consciousness  that  he  alone  possesses  the  most  philosophical  views  of 
the  existence  and  nature  of  the  Deity;  of  the  nature,  duties,  and 
hopes  of  mankind;  of  justice,  equity,  and  charity;  of  the  several 
relations  between  God  and  his  creatures,  and  between  man  and  his 
fellow-man.  With  this  sublime  conviction  he  first  stood  in  the  midst 
of  degraded  and  superstitious  heathenism,  then  by  the  side  of  per- 
secuting Catholicism,  and  finally  opposed  to  a  ridiculous  mysticism. 
.  .  .  The  Jew,  however,  felt  conscious  of  the  verities  of  his  religion, 
and  therefore  he  loved  them  better  than  his  life  and  worldly  inter- 
ests; he  saw  himself  alone  in  the  world,  alone  with  his  sublime  ideas, 
and  therefore  he  lived  in  his  faith  and  for  it,  and  the  thousand  forms 
which  he  observed  only  led  him  to  his  sublime  ideas.  It  was  this 
elevating  and  inspiring  consciousness,  and  not  rabbinism,  which 
preserved  Judaism.  But  now  the  idea,  the  sublime  cardinal  elements, 
are  almost  lost  sight  of  in  the  multitude  of  thoughtless  observances 
of  rabbinical  forms.  .  .  .  Judaism  has  become  a  set  of  unmeaning 
practices,  and  the  intelligent  Jew  either  mourns  for  the  fallen 
daughter  of  Zion  or  has  adopted  a  course  of  frivolity  and  indifference. 
Therefore  we  demand  reforms.  All  unmeaning  forms  must  be  laid 
aside  as  outworn  garments.  The  internal  spirit  of  Judaism  must  be 
expounded,  illustrated,  and  made  dear  again  to  the  Jew.  We  must 
inform  our  friends  and  opponents  that  there  is  a  Judaism  independent 
of  its  forms,  and  that  this  is  Judaism  emphatically.  It  is  therefore 
our  principle  of  reform :  ' '  All  forms  to  which  no  meaning  is  attached 
any  longer  are  an  impediment  to  our  religion,  and  must  be  done 
away  with."  Before  we  propose  to  abolish  anything  we  should 
inquire,  What  is  its  practical  benefit?  If  there  is  none  it  is  time  to 
renounce  it,  for  one  dead  limb  injures  the  whole  body.  Another 
principle  of  reform  is  this :  * '  Whatever  makes  us  ridiculous  before  the 
world  as  it  now  is,  may  safely  be  and  should  be  abolished, ' '  for  we  are 
in  possession  of  an  intelligent  religion,  and  the  nations  from  our 
precept  and  example  should  be  led  to  say,  "This  is  a  wise  and 
intelligent  people." 

A  third  principle  of  reform  is  this,  "Whatever  tends  to  the  eleva- 
tion of  the  divine  service,  to  inspire  the  heart  of  the  worshiper  and 
attract  him,  should  be  done  without  any  unnecessary  delay,"  for  the 
value  of  divine  service  must  be  estimated  according  to  its  effect  upon 
the  heart  and  understanding. 

A  fourth  principle  of  reform  is  this,  "Whenever  religious  observ- 
ances and  the  just  demands  of  civilized  society  exclude  each  other, 
the  former  have  lost  their  power ; ' '  for  religion  was  taught  for  the 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  479 

purpose  ' l  to  live  therein  and  not  to  die  therein ; ' '  our  religion  makes 
us  active  members  of  civilized  society,  hence  we  must  give  full 
satisfaction  to  its  just  demands. 

Last,  or  rather  first,  it  must  be  remarked,  the  leading  star  of 
reform  must  be  the  maxim,  "Beligion  is  intended  to  make  man 
happy,  good,  just,  active,  charitable,  and  intelligent."  Whatever 
tends  to  this  end  is  truly  religious,  and  must  be  retained  or  intro- 
duced if  it  does  not  yet  exist.  Whatever  has  an  effect  contrary  to 
the  above  must  be  abolished  as  soon  as  possible. 

David  Einhorn  (1809-1879),  whose  name  has  appeared 
frequently  in  these  pages  as  one  of  the  foremost  reformers 
in  Germany,  easily  sustained  his  prestige  as  one  of  the 
leading  spirits  of  the  liberal  movement  after  his  arrival  in 
the  United  States.  In  many  an  inspiring  sermon  and  in 
many  a  learned  article  he  expressed  the  fundamental 
principles  of  reform.  His  words  ring  with  the  earnestness 
of  conviction,  and  are  eloquent  with  the  enthusiastic  out- 
pourings of  a  spirit  akin  to  that  of  the  prophets  of  old. 
Israel 's  Messianic  mission,  Judaism 's  true  inwardness,  these 
form  the  constant  refrain  of  the  remarkable  utterances  of 
this  man,  whose  lips  were  touched  with  the  coal  of  living 
fire  taken  from  the  altar  of  God.  In  the  very  first  sermon 
that  he  preached  in  the  United  States,  his  inaugural  address 
before  the  Har  Sinai  congregation  in  Baltimore,  he  stated 
in  broad  and  clear  lines  his  conception  of  Judaism.  From 
that  sermon  the  subjoined  paragraphs  are  taken  as  indica- 
tive of  his  thought : 

Like  man  himself,  the  child  of  God,  the  divine  law  has  a  perishable 
body  and  an  imperishable  spirit.  The  body  is  intended  to  be  the 
servant  of  the  spirit,  and  must  disappear  as  soon  as  bereft  of  the 
latter.  This  spirit  is  the  doctrinal  and  moral  law  of  Scripture,  whose 
fundamental  principles  the  Ten  Commandments  set  forth  exclusively; 
to  them  belongs  also  the  Sabbath,  which  has  a  symbolical  significance 
only  in  reference  to  the  choice  of  the  day.  The  Decalogue  is  the 
essence  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  man;  it  is  therefore 
binding  for  all  times,  places,  and  peoples,  and  was  destined  to 
become  from  the  very  beginning  the  common  possession  of  mankind 
through  Israel.  .  .  .  All  other  divine  ordinances,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  only  signs  of  the  covenant — guards  and  protections  of  the  eternal 
and  universal  law  .  .  .  ;  these,  from  their  very  nature,  cannot 


480  THE  BEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

remain  always  and  everywhere  the  same,  nor  acquire  the  force  of 
eternal  or  general  obligations.  Not  that  man  will  ever  be  able  to 
dispense  altogether  with  visible  signs,  but  the  expression  and  form 
of  these  must  necessarily  change  with  different  stages  of  culture, 
national  customs,  industrial,  social,  and  civil  conditions,  in  short  with 
the  general  demands  of  the  inner  and  outer  life.  As  little  as  the 
ripe  fruit  can  be  forced  back  into  the  bud  or  the  butterfly  into  the 
chrysalis,  so  little  can  the  religious  idea  in  its  long  process  from 
generation  to  maturity  be  bound  to  one  and  the  same  form.  And  if 
the  inner  growth  of  the  religious  idea  in  Judaism  demands  such 
a  transformation,  the  contact  with  the  world  calls  for  it  none  the  less 
urgently.  .  .  .  The  Israel  which  nestled  on  Mount  Zion,  more  or  less 
isolated  among  the  neighboring  peoples,  that,  ocean-like,  surrounded 
it,  could  and  did  fortify  itself  with  quite  different  bulwarks  than  the 
Israel  which  traverses  this  ocean  in  all  directions,  which  wanders 
through  all  districts  with  its  spiritual  possessions,  and,  willy  nilly, 
cannot  but  recognize  the  demands  made  upon  it  to  coalesce  with  the 
peoples  round  about.  And,  in  truth,  the  historical  development  of 
our  religion  has  effected  so  great  a  change  in  the  biblical  ordinances, 
that  during  the  space  of  two  thousand  years  the  observance  of  the 
greater  portion  of  them  has  disappeared  from  Jewish  life. 

It  is  true,  the  piety  of  our  fathers  sought  to  retain  a  hold  on  these 
forms  as  long  and  as  well  as  it  could  possibly  be  done;  they  lamented 
sore  as  though  in  their  loss  Judaism  had  sustained  a  fatal  wound,  and 
they  comforted  themselves  with  the  thought  that  these  laws  were 
only  in  a  state  of  suspended  animation.  Not  forever  and  for  aye, 
so  mused  they,  would  the  glorious  house  of  David,  the  magnificent 
temple  with  its  sacrifices,  and  priests,  and  Levites  be  sunk  into  the 
dust;  not  forever  and  for  aye  would  Israel  remain  an  outcast  from  its 
ancestral  home!  At  some  future  day  the  Lord  would  once  again 
erect  the  fallen  tabernacle  of  David,  gather  the  scattered  tribes  of 
Israel  into  the  old  home,  and  let  the  sanctuary  of  Zion  rise  in  all  its 
glory!  But  the  lamentation  as  well  as  the  consolation  rested  on  the 
same  untenable  foundation,  viz.,  the  equalization,  or  more  correctly 
the  confounding,  of  the  religious  form  with  the  religious  spirit. 
Hence  both  were  invested  with  immutability,  and  instead  of  striving 
to  spiritualize  the  form,  the  spirit  was  formalized  and  a  ceremonial 
standard  applied  even  to  the  moral  law. 

Long  ago  those  prophetical  voices  had  been  silenced  which,  with 
unwearied  enthusiasm,  had  extolled  the  spirit  of  the  divine  law  as 
the  true  banner  of  Israel,  about  which  all  people  would  some  day 
rally,  and,  compared  with  which,  all  sacrifice  and  fasting  would 
appear  worthless.  Those  prophets  would  have  proclaimed  at  the 
destruction  of  the  second  temple:  " Comfort  ye!  the  old  forms  are 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  481 

and  will  remain  dead,  but  out  of  their  grave  the  freed  spirit  rises  to 
spread  its  pinions  over  all  the  earth;  out  of  the  ashes  of  the 
destroyed  temple  of  isolated  Israel  will  gradually  emerge  that  gigan- 
tic temple,  whereof  the  Lord  hath  said  $3'?  ^^pi  n^£H  J"P2  ^JVD 
D^ioyn  <M7  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples; ' 
from  the  ruins  of  Judah  a  Messianic  world  will  arise !  Yes,  often  will 
you  be  forced  to  cement  the  stones  of  this  structure  with  your  heart's 
blood;  but  such  a  mission  merits  such  sacrifices,  and  these  sacrifices 
are  worth  more  than  thousands  of  rams  and  goats ! ' '  Thus,  I  claim, 
our  old  prophets  would  have  spoken;  and  truly  at  the  present  time 
we  are  called  upon  most  urgently  to  work  earnestly  and  effectively 
in  the  spirit  of  the  prophets,  to  proceed  to  make  the  proper  modifica- 
tion of  our  outer  and  our  inner  religious  life.  Judaism  has  reached 
a  turning-point  when  all  such  customs  and  usages  as  are  lifeless  must 
be  abolished,  partly  with  the  object  of  retaining  its  own  followers, 
partly  to  protect  from  moral  degeneracy.  In  consequence  of  the 
insuperable  conditions  of  life  there  has  set  in  a  violent  antagonism 
between  practice  and  religious  conviction  which  will  eventually  cease 
to  distress  the  conscience.  The  continuance  of  such  a  state  of  affairs 
would  be  the  greatest  misfortune  that  could  befall  Israel.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  most  important  ceremonial  laws  are  violated  daily, 
laws  which  are  still  considered  incumbent  upon  the  Israelite;  on  the 
other  hand,  religious  wishes  and  hopes  are  expressed  in  prayer  which 
do  not  awaken  the  least  response  in  the  heart,  and  stand  in  absolute 
contradiction  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  Sinaitic  doctrine.  This  must 
necessarily  lead  to  one  of  two  things,  either  that  the  religious 
sentiment  will  become  completely  dulled  or  take  refuge  in  the  bosom 
of  some  other  faith.  Experience  has  shown  the  futility  of  all  attempts 
to  breathe  life  into  the  obsolete  and  dead.  Even  those  praiseworthy 
attempts  to  win  back  for  the  public  service  some  of  the  old  attractive- 
ness by  establishing  an  outward  harmony  must  and  will  remain 
fruitless  as  long  as,  at  bottom,  they  serve  merely  to  hide  the  inner 
decay.  There  is  at  present  a  rent  in  Judaism  which  affects  its  very 
life,  and  which  no  covering,  however  glittering,  can  repair.  The  evil 
which  threatens  to  corrode  gradually  all  the  healthy  bone  and  marrow 
must  be  completely  eradicated,  and  this  can  be  done  only  if,  in  the 
name  and  in  the  interest  of  the  religion,  we  remove  from  the  sphere 
of  our  religious  life  all  that  is  corrupt  and  untenable,  and  solemnly 
absolve  ourselves  from  all  obligations  toward  it  in  the  future;  thus 
we  may  achieve  the  liberation  of  Judaism  for  ourselves  and  for  our 
children,  so  as  to  prevent  the  estrangement  from  Judaism.1 

1  Antrittspredigt  gehalten  im  Tempel  des  Har  Sinai  Vereins,  von 
Dr.  David  Einhorn,  pp.  6,  8.     Baltimore,  1855. 
31 


482  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

The  renunciation  of  antiquated  religious  notions  and  customs  must 
direct  our  attention  the  more  singly  and  completely  to  the  essence 
of  God's  word,  which  is  exalted  above  the  change  of  times  and  places, 
and  will  be  potent  even  though  the  earth  wax  old  as  a  garment  and 
the  heavens  vanish  like  smoke.  No,  no!  we  do  not  desire  a  self-made 
cult,  our  wish  is  not  for  a  Judaism  manufactured  to  meet  the  demands 
of  aestheticism ;  no  planing  off  of  the  Israelitish  emblem,  no  excur- 
sions into  the  empty  void;  but,  on  the  contrary,  an  Israelitism  that  is 
rooted  in  Sinai  and  wishes  to  bring  forth  new  blossoms  and  fruits 
on  the  mighty  height  of  a  history  of  four  thousand  years.  .  .  .  The 
more  ceremonialism  loses  its  import  and  extent  among  us,  the  more 
necessary  it  becomes  to  grasp  the  Jewish  belief  in  its  uniqueness, 
a  uniqueness  which  separates  Judaism  from  all  other  faiths,  even 
after  the  abolition  of  its  whole  ceremonial  law. 

These,  then,  are  the  beliefs  which  are  the  source  of  our  strength, 
the  fundamental  reason  of  our  unexampled  endurance,  the  trophy  of 
our  historical  struggle — the  belief  in  the  one  and  only  God,  who, 
eternal,  invisible  and  incorporeal,  reveals  himself  to  man  alone  in 
his  wonderful  works,  but  especially  in  man  himself,  pervading  every- 
thing alike,  the  earth  and  the  heavens,  the  perishable  and  the 
imperishable,  the  body  and  the  spirit; — the  belief  in  the  innate 
goodness  and  purity  of  every  created  thing,  and  especially  of  the 
godlike  creatures  gifted  with  reason,  whose  free  self-sanctification 
no  original  sin  prevents,  and  whose  redemption  and  salvation  no 
other  mediation  than  their  own  free  activity  can  effect; — the  belief 
in  one  humanity,  all  of  whose  members,  being  of  the  same  heavenly 
and  earthly  origin,  possess  a  like  nobility  of  birth  and  a  claim  to 
equal  rights,  equal  laws,  and  an  equal  share  of  happiness; — the 
belief  that  all  will  partake  of  this  happiness  here  on  earth  by  the 
eventual  amalgamation  of  all  peoples  into  one  people  of  God,  from 
whose  midst  the  Lord,  according  to  the  prophetical  promise,  DHO  D21 
D1"!^  D^PD^  HpX,  will  choose  also  non  Israelitish  priests  and  Levites; 
this  people  will  recognize  the  Lord  of  the  universe  alone  as  its  king 
PIKH  5>D  5>y  1^5  "  PPPII.  Then  shall  the  blood-stained  purple  of 
earthly  dominion  be  buried  forever,  and  with  it  the  whole  illusion 
of  glittering  falsehood,  selfishness,  and  persecution.  These  and  like 
teachings,  whose  first  promulgation  had  to  take  place  within  the  pale 
of  the  narrow  Jewish  nationality  for  fear  lest  mankind  at  large 
might  have  been  blinded  by  their  splendor,  are  Israel's  still  to-day; 
the  possession  thereof  is  its  pride,  their  future  acknowledgment  its 
only  hope.  Each  of  these  doctrines  contains  treasures  of  world- 
redeeming  thoughts,  and  it  is  our  sacred  mission  to  draw  forth  these 
treasures  more  and  more  from  out  the  deep  mine  of  our  literature, 


EEFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  483 

to  show  them  forth  in  all  their  glory,  to  make  them  practicable  for 
active  life,  and  through  them  enrich  heart  and  soul.1 

Samuel  Adler  (1809-1891),  the  student  and  scholar,  an 
active  participant  in  the  German  rabbinical  conferences  of 
the  fifth  decade  was  active  in  the  city  of  New  York,  where 
he  served  as  Rabbi  of  Temple  Emanuel  for  nineteen 
years.  He  came  to  this  country  from  Alzey  in  1857.  His 
sermon  on  the  last  day  of  Passover  in  that  year  clearly  in- 
dicated that  a  new  leader  had  been  gained  for  the  cause  of 
Reform  Judaism  in  America. 

Our  situation  is  like  unto  that  of  the  Israelites  immediately  after 
their  deliverance  from  Egypt.  Behind  us  lies  Egypt,  the  Middle 
Ages,  before  us  the  sea  of  Talmudic  legalism,  whereof  it  may  truly 
be  said,  all  streams  and  rivulets  discharge  themselves  into  the  sea, 
which  is  nevertheless  never  filled  nor  yet  ever  cleansed  through  flood. 
Let,  then,  the  rod  be  raised  to  cleave  it!  backwards  we  cannot  go,  to 
stand  still  means  death.  Then  let  us  forward,  forward  across  the 
sea.  Eeason  holds  the  rod,  reason  is  the  leader.  The  Torah  itself 
calls  itself  our  wisdom  and  our  understanding  in  the  eyes  of  the  na- 
tions. A  violent  east  wind  is  being  wafted,  and  dries  up  the  sea  in 
this  land  of  freedom.  The  spirit  indwelling  here  in  the  West,  the 
spirit  of  freedom,  is  the  newly-born  Messiah.2 

Shortly  before  the  Sinai  congregation  of  Chicago  was 
organized,3  its  promoters  addressed  a  series  of  questions  to 
Dr.  Adler,  one  of  which  was,  "What  course  should  a  re- 
formed congregation  pursue?"  His  answer  in  part  was 
as  follows: 

The  answer  to  this  question  would  quite  fill  a  book,  and  cannot  be 
even  fully  indicated  in  a  letter.  However,  in  order  not  to  leave  you 
without  any  satisfaction.  I  would  state  that  the  first  and  most 
important  step  for  such  a  congregation  to  take  is  to  free  its  service 
of  shocking  lies,  to  remove  from  it  the  mention  of  things  and  wishes 
which  we  would  not  utter  if  it  had  to  be  done  in  an  intelligible 
manner.  Such  are,  the  lamentation  about  oppression  and  persecu- 
tion, the  petition  for  the  restoration  of  the  sacrifical  cult,  for  the 
return  of  Israel  to  Palestine,  the  hope  for  a  personal  Messiah,  and  for 

1  Antrittspredigt  gehalten  im  Tempel  des  Har  Sinai  Vereins,  von 
Dr.  David  Einhorn,  pp.  9,  10.     Baltimore,  1855. 
3  Sinai,  II,  534.  *  Supra,  p.  471. 


484  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  resurrection  of  the  body.  In  the  second  place,  to  eliminate 
fustian  and  exaggeration;  and,  in  the  third  place,  to  make  the  service 
clear,  intelligible,  instructive,  and  inspiring.1 

Samuel  Adler  was  essentially  a  scholar,  and  preferred 
the  quiet  of  the  study  to  the  excitement  of  active  life.  He 
spent  the  last  sixteen  years  of  his  life  in  honored  retire- 
ment. 

Bernard  Felsenthal  (b.  1822),  who  is  now  living  in 
scholarly  seclusion,  was  the  most  active  spirit  in  the  in- 
auguration of  the  reform  movement  in  Chicago.  As  rabbi 
of  Sinai  and  later  of  Zion  congregation  of  that  city,  his 
voice  and  his  pen  were  ever  active  in  the  service  of  reform. 
In  the  pamphlet  Kol  Kore  Bamidbar,  which,  a  clarion  call, 
he  addressed  to  the  friends  of  reform  in  the  year  1859,  he 
speaks  with  no  uncertain  tone.  From  this  pamphlet  a 
number  of  paragraphs  are  herewith  taken : 

There  is  a  time  to  tear  down  and  a  time  to  build  up.  Thus  speaks 
the  holy  book  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  God.  Our  age,  in  as  far  as 
it  concerns  itself  with  Jewish  religious  life,  is  evidently  intended 
rather  to  build  up  than  to  tear  down.  But  what  shall  be  built  up, 
what  shall  be  constructed  anew?  The  inner,  deep-seated  belief  in 
God,  the  moral  sense  in  all  the  relations  of  life,  the  attachment  to 
and  love  for  Judaism,  the  teaching  of  Moses  freed  of  all  heathenism 
and  foolishness;  with  this  must  be  combined  the  excision  of  all 
statutes  and  observances  intended  for  other  times,  places,  and 
conditions.2 

There  is  but  one  class  of  laws  which,  biblical  or  post-biblical,  have 
eternal  validity,  and  these  are  the  moral  laws,  engraved  by  the  finger 
of  God  with  ineradicable  letters  in  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.8 

A  religious  law,  which  has  not  its  root  in  the  spiritual  or  physical 
nature  of  man,  is  of  binding  force  only  so  long  as  it  is  able  to  exert 
a  hallowing  influence  on  mind  and  heart,  on  the  sentiments  and 
actions  of  the  devotee.* 

By  virtue  of  our  mind,  which  we  recognize  as  a  revelation  of  God 
in  common  with  the  rest  of  nature,  we  distinguish  the  treasures  of 
eternal  truth  in  sacred  Scripture  from  that  which  is  the  result  of  the 

1  Appendix  to  Kol  Kore  Bamidbar:  Ueber  judische  Eeform,  by  B. 
Felsenthal,  p.  37.  Chicago,  1859. 

2 Kol  Kore  Bamidbar,  p.  1.  'Ibid.,  p.  11.  4 Ibid.,  p.  12. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  485 

deficient  conceptions  of  early  times  and  the  incorrect  ideas  con- 
cerning the  world  and,  life,  as  well  as  from  those  laws  which  were 
intended  for  past  and  transient  conditions. 

Holding  this  doctrine  concerning  the  Bible,  we  the  more  certainly 
assume  the  right  to  subject  the  post-biblical  religious  sources  and 
institutions  to  investigation,  and  to  separate  that  which  we  consider 
true  in  principle  and  worthy  of  retention  from  that  which  is  evidently 
unsound  in  doctrine  and  antiquated  or  irrelevant  in  practice.  But 
we  recognize  our  mission  to  consist  much  more  in  nurturing  and 
building  up  than  in  abolishing  and  removing.  Doctrines  which  we 
have  recognized  as  true,  but  which  have  lost  in  great  part  their  hold 
oil  our  contemporaries,  must  be  implanted  anew  and  more  firmly; 
institutions  which  have  a  hallowing  influence  on  the  religious  nature, 
and  which  are  likely  to  enhance  the  religious  life,  must  be  retained, 
suitably  changed,  or,  when  necessary,  created  anew,  according  to  the 
needs  and  circumstances.1 

Samuel  Hirsch  (1815-1889)  was  the  philosopher  of  the 
movement.  Although  he  did  not  come  to  the  United  States 
till  1866,  yet,  with  his  clearness  of  purpose  and  positiveness 
of  conviction,  he  became  a  strong  factor  in  the  work  of  Re- 
form Judaism,  not  alone  in  Philadelphia,  but  in  wider 
circles.  In  his  various  books,  Die  Religionsphilosophie  der 
Juden, 2  Die  Messiaslehre  der  Juden  in  Kanzelvortrdgen, 8 
Das  Judenthum,  der  christliche  Staat  und  die  moderne 
Kritik, 4  Die  Humanitdt  als  Religion, 5  he  had  fully  and 
explicitly  expounded  his  views  on  religion,  explained  the 
principles  of  Judaism,  and  set  forth  his  interpretation  of 
the  meaning  and  symbolism  of  the  ceremonies  and  laws. 
As  an  expression  of  his  thought,  selection  has  been  made 
of  the  closing  paragraphs  of  his  dissertation  Die  Reform 
im  Judenthum, 6  where  he  gives  the  conclusions  of  his 
reasoning : 

The  need  of  the  time  is  the  highest  law  in  Judaism;  all  cere- 
monies are  but  means  for  the  fulfillment  of  this  highest  law;  the 
means  must  however  everywhere  be  subservient  to  the  end,  therefore 
also  in  Judaism.  The  demand  that  everything  which  hinders  us  from 
working  for  the  maintenance  and  prosperity  of  civil  society,  with  all 

1  Kol  Kore  Bamidbar,  p.  17.          2  Leipzig,  1842.          « Ibid.,  1843. 
*  Ibid.,  1843.  «  Trier,  1854.  e  Liepzig,  1844,  pp.  67-69. 


486  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

our  spiritual  and  material  powers,  be  removed  from  our  ceremonial 
practice  is  therefore  religiously  justified.  ...  It  is  a  serious  mis- 
demeanor against,  and  not  an  indifferent  action  towards,  the  spirit 
of  Judaism  if  anything  be  retained  which  in  any  way  prevents  us 
from  the  fulfillment  of  duties  incumbent  upon  the  citizen  as  such. 
It  matters  not  whether  any  ceremony  which  is  not  to  be  retained 
for  the  above-mentioned  reason  be  prescribed  in  the  Bible  or  the 
Talmud.  .  .  .  Even  the  most  biased  cannot  deny  that  in  the  regula- 
tion of  the  ceremonial  law  the  Bible  had  only  the  Jewish  state  in 
view.  True,  it  forsees  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  state  as  a  divine 
punishment,  but  it  conceives  the  event  to  have  been  possible  of 
prevention  by  the  Jews  through  a  change  of  conduct,  and  therefore 
it  gives  no  precepts  as  to  how  the  religious  life  was  to  be  arranged 
thereafter.  When  the  Jewish  state  disappeared,  the  people,  as 
Holdheim  correctly  remarks,  had  no  guiding  principle  to  determine 
what,  under  the  changed  circumstances,  should  be  retained  and  what 
must  be  abrogated.  .  .  . 

The  ceremonies  became  meaningless,  i.  e.,  their  meaning  was  no 
longer  understood,  and  they  passed  current  as  the  incomprehensible 
commands  of  God.  Therefore  to  observe  as  many  of  the  prescribed 
ceremonies  as  possible  became  the  one  and  important  principle. 
What  was  no  longer  possible  of  observance,  as  the  temple  service 
and  everything  connected  with  the  possession  of  Palestine,  naturally 
had  to  be  relinquished.  Yet  this  was  regarded  only  as  a  punishment 
of  God.  God  has  abolished  our  sacrifices,  our  Sabbath  and  jubilee- 
years,  because  we  are  unworthy  to  fulfill  these  commands.  Therefore 
the  ever-repeated  sigh,  "Lead  us  back  to  Palestine  in  order  that"- 
possibly  to  found  there  a  state  that  should  serve  for  the  glorification 
of  God?  No,  but — "we  may  pay  our  penalty  there,  that  we  may 
offer  the  prescribed  number  of  sacrifices,  etc."  This  is  always  and 
again  the  heathenish  conception  (so  opposed  to  our  time  as  well  as  to 
the  Jewish  spirit),  that  by  the  practice  of  ceremonies  a  service  is 
rendered  to  God,  and  as  though  only  the  service  in  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  could  be  perfect  because  only  there  everything  that  God 
commands  could  be  carried  out.  But  our  standpoint  to-day  is 
entirely  different.  We,  and  the  world  with  us,  have  arrived  at  the 
threshold  of  the  future  that  the  prophets  foresaw.  A  world-temple 
must  be  built  unto  God,  for  His  name  shall  be  praised  from  the  rising 
of  the  sun  to  the  setting  thereof.  The  freedom  of  every  man  must 
be  not  merely  proclaimed  but  realized,  for  all  were  created  in  the 
image  of  God.  The  sanctity  of  labor  must  be  declared,  for  man  has 
been  placed  on  earth  to  work,  to  employ  and  develop  his  powers. 
God's  activity  in  the  history  of  the  individual  and  of  nations  must  be 


EEFOKM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  487 

recognized  and  acknowledged.  God  gives  the  individual  and  nations 
the  opportunity  to  use  their  powers  rightly.  If  they  undertake  this 
high  task  they  will  live;  if  not,  and  they  prefer  mental  sloth  and 
material  luxury  to  hard  work,  they  will  go  to  ruin. 

Finally,  we  must  bear  testimony  to  the  world,  through  our  cult 
and  through  appropriate  symbols  and  ceremonies,  that  this  truth  is 
confirmed  in  sacred  history,  inasmuch  as  there  is  shown  in  it  how,  in 
a  rude,  material  age,  a  people,  ruder  and  more  sensual  than  others, 
was  trained  until  it  recognized  and  taught  for  all  time  to  come  the 
rule  of  spirit  over  nature,  and  how  the  spirit  can  retain  this 
superiority  only  by  free,  spiritual  activity.  Therefore  symbols  must 
be  retained  in  Judaism,  symbols  which  shall  give  this  testimony  in 
a  fitting  manner  both  to  the  Jews  and  to  the  world.  But  the  Jews  of 
the  present  day  must,  before  all  else,  participate  in  the  work  of  the 
age  with  all  their  powers;  for  this  work  is  the  object  of  Jewish 
history,  yes,  it  is  the  be-all  and  the  end-all  of  Judaism.  The  high 
aim  sanctified  by  time  and  by  Judaism  is,  that  all  men  be  free,  all 
recognize  God,  all  employ  their  spiritual  and  material  powers  with 
full  and  free  desire,  so  that  a  throne  be  built  for  truth  and  justice  on 
this  earth,  a  throne  which  shall  adorn  the  lowliest  hut  as  well  as  the 
most  glorious  palace.  Therefore  no  symbol  can  hereafter  pass  as 
Jewish  which  prevents  the  Jew  from  participating  in  and  working 
towards  the  fulfillment  of  this  object  with  all  his  powers.  He  may 
not  be  a  mere  spectator  of  the  work  of  the  modern  age,  but  must 
give  himself  heart  and  soul  to  it,  for  this  is  the  command  of  the  God 
of  his  fathers,  who  only  wishes  to  have  right  and  love  realized  on 
earth,  and  therefore  called  Abraham  from  the  other  side  of  the  river, 
and  desired  to  make  him  and  his  descendants  a  blessing  for  the  world 
through  their  deeds  and  their  sufferings. 

These  men  were  the  leaders  to  whose  influence  is  due  the 
decided  trend  that  Judaism  in  this  country  took  towards 
reform.  Their  work  was,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  largely 
individual,  but  in  one  instance  they,  with  others,  met  in 
conference  and  gave  expression  to  a  declaration  of  princi- 
ples. It  is  this  and  other  conferences  of  rabbis  that  will 
now  engage  our  attention. 

Rabbinical  Conferences 

The  first  conference  of  rabbis  of  the  reform  school  in  this 
country  was  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  Nov.  3  to  6, 
1869.  Thirteen  years  before  that,  in  1856,  there  had  been 


488  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

a  conference  at  Cleveland,  0. ;  this,  however,  aimed  to  be  a 
conference  of  all  the  rabbis  of  the  country  of  all  shades  of 
opinion.  The  articles  upon  which  the  rabbis  assembled 
at  Cleveland  agreed  were— 

*  *  1.  The  Bible,  as  delivered  to  us  by  our  fathers,  and  as 
now  in  our  possession,  is  of  immediate  divine  origin,  and 
the  standard  of  our  religion. 

"2.  The  Talmud  contains  the  traditional  legal  and  log- 
ical exposition  of  the  biblical  laws,  which  must  be  ex- 
pounded and  practiced  according  to  the  comments  of  the 
Talmud." 

The  second  article  called  forth  strong  protests  from  the 
Har  Sinai  congregation  of  Baltimore  and  the  Emanuel 
congregation  of  New  York;  on  the  other  hand,  the  confer- 
ence did  not  go  far  enough  for  the  rigidly  orthodox.  The 
results  of  this  conference  were  most  unfortunate.  The 
house  of  the  reformers  was  divided;  two  factions  arose, 
one  in  the  eastern,  the  other  in  the  western,  part  of  the 
country.  This  division  continued  for  years  with  resultant 
controversies  and  dissensions,  but  the  breach  has  been  hap- 
pily healed,  as  shall  be  seen  later  on. 

The  decade  following  the  Cleveland  Conference,  being 
the  years  of  the  civil  war  and  intense  political  excitement 
which  overshadowed  all  other  interests,  witnessed  no 
further  effort  at  a  meeting  of  this  kind.  In  the  years  1867- 
1868,  however,  the  subject  was  re-agitated  in  the  columns 
of  the  Israelite,  but  before  the  meeting  was  called  a  confer- 
ence was  convened  by  the  Eastern  reformers  in  Philadel- 
phia in  1869.  This  conference  was  attended  by  the  lead- 
ing reformers  from  both  sections  of  the  country.  The 
conference  adopted  the  following  principles,  the  first  public 
statement  made  by  a  body  of  reformers  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic : 

1.  The  Messianic  aim  of  Israel  is  not  the  restoration  of  the  old 
Jewish  state  under  a  descendant  of  David,  involving  a  second  separa- 
tion from  the  nations  of  the  earth,  but  the  union  of  all  the  children 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  489 

of  God  in  the  confession  of  the  unity  of  God,  so  as  to  realize  the 
unity  of  all  rational  creatures  and  their  call  to  moral  sanctification. 

2.  We  look  upon  the  destruction  of  the  second  Jewish  common- 
wealth not  as  a  punishment  for  the  sinfulness  of  Israel,  but  as  a 
result   of    the   divine  purpose   revealed   to   Abraham,   which,   as   has 
become  ever  clearer  in  the  course  of  the  world's  history,  consists  in 
the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  to  all  parts  of  the  earth,  for  the  realization 
of  their  high  priestly  mission,  to  lead  the  nations  to  the  true  knowl- 
edge and  worship  of  God. 

3.  The    Aaronic   priesthood   and   the   Mosaic   sacrificial   cult   were 
preparatory  steps  to  the  real  priesthood  of  the  whole  people,  which 
began  with  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  and  to  the  sacrifices  of  sincere 
devotion    and    moral    sanctification,    which    alone    are    pleasing    and 
acceptable    to    the    Most    Holy.     These    institutions,  'preparatory    to 
higher   religiosity,   were    consigned   to   the   past,   once   for   all,   with 
the   destruction   of   the   second   temple,   and   only   in   this   sense — as 
educational  influences  in  the  past — are  they  to  be  mentioned  in  our 
prayers. 

4.  Every  distinction  between  Aaronides  and  non-Aaronides,  as  far 
as  religious  rites  and  duties  are  concerned,  is  consequently  inadmissi- 
ble, both  in  the  religious  cult  and  in  life. 

5.  The  selection  of  Israel  as  the  people  of  religion,  as  the  bearers 
of  the  highest   idea   of  humanity,   is  still,   as   ever,   to  be  strongly 
emphasized,   and   for   this  very  reason,   whenever   this   is  mentioned 
it   shall  be   done   with   full   emphasis   laid   on   the   world-embracing 
mission  of  Israel  and  the  love  of  God  for  all  His  children. 

6.  The  belief  in  the  bodily  resurrection  has  no  religious  foundation, 
and  the  doctrine  of  immortality  refers  to  the  after-existence  of  the 
soul  only. 

7.  Urgently  as  the  cultivation  of  the  Hebrew  language,  in  which 
the  treasures  of  divine  revelation  are  given  and  the  immortal  remains 
of   a   literature   that   influences   all   civilized   nations   are   preserved, 
must  be  always  desired  by  us  in  fulfillment  of  a  sacred  duty,  yet  has 
it  become  unintelligible  to  the  vast  majority  of  our  co-religionists; 
therefore  it  must  make  way,  as  is  advisable  under  existing  circum- 
stances, to  intelligible  language  in  prayer,  which,  if  not  understood, 
is  a  soulless  form.1 

The  conference,  after  adopting  a  number  of  resolutions 
reforming  rabbinical  legislation  on  marriage  and  divorce,2 

lProtoTcolle   der  Eabbiner  Confer enz  dbgehalten   zu  Philadelphia, 
pp.  86-87.     New  York,  1870. 

-  The  pronouncements  of  the  conference  on  the  subject  of  marriage 


490  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

adjourned  to  meet  in  Cincinnati  the  following  year.  The 
meeting,  however,  did  not  take  place,  because  some  of  the 
men  who  were  most  prominent  in  the  Philadelphia  Confer- 
ence failed  to  appear.  In  the  year  1871  a  conference  did 

were  in  the  reform  spirit.  They  declared:  (1)  The  bride  shall  no 
longer  be  a  passive  party  to  the  marriage  ceremony,  but  a  mutual 
consecration  by  both  bridegroom  and  bride  shall  take  place  by  their 
speaking  the  same  formula  of  marriage  and  by  the  exchange  of  rings. 
(Cf.  Supra,  436.)  (2)  The  following  is  the  formula  of  marriage: 
"Be  consecrated  to  me  as  wife  (as  husband)  according  to  the  law 
of  God."  (3)  For  the  traditional  benedictions  pDIVK  rD"D  there 
shall  be  substituted  such  a  benediction  as  sets  forth  the  full  moral 
grandeur  of  marriage,  emphasizes  the  Biblical  idea  of  the  union  of 
husband  and  wife  into  one  personality  (-[pIK  <m\W2t?  "Pill),  and  desig- 
nates purity  in  wedlock  as  a  divine  command.  (4)  Polygamy  con- 
tradicts the  idea  of  marriage.  The  marriage  of  a  married  man  to 
another  woman  is  as  little  possible  as  the  marriage  of  a  married 
woman  to  another  man,  and  must  be  considered  null  and  void. 
(5)  The  priestly  marriage  laws  which  pre-supposed  the  greater 
holiness  of  the  Aaronides  have  lost  all  significance  since  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple  and  the  disappearance  of  the  old  sacrificial  cult, 
and  therefore  hold  no  longer. 

The  conference  made  also  a  definite  declaration  concerning  the 
chalitzah  ceremony.  ' '  The  command  to  marry  the  brother-in-law  and 
in  case  of  his  refusal  to  take  off  the  shoe,  etc.,  has  lost  for  us  all 
sense,  all  importance  and  all  binding  force. ' '  On  the  subject  of  divorce 
the  Conference  passed  the  following  resolutions:  (1)  From  the 
Mosaic  and  rabbinical  standpoint  divorce  is  a  purely  civil  act,  which 
never  received  religious  consecration;  it  is  therefore  valid  only  when 
it  proceeds  from  the  civil  court.  The  so-called  ritual  Get  is  invalid 
in  all  cases.  (2)  A  divorce  given  by  the  civil  court  is  valid  in  the 
eyes  of  Judaism  if  it  appears  from  the  judicial  documents  that  both 
parties  have  consented  to  the  divorce;  but  when  the  court  has  de- 
creed a  divorce  against  the  wish  of  one  or  other  of  the  couple, 
Judaism  on  its  part  can  consider  the  divorce  valid  only  when  the 
judicial  reasons  for  granting  the  divorce  have  been  investigated  and 
found  of  sufficient  weight.  It  is  recommended  that  before  deciding 
the  rabbi  obtain  the  opinion  of  experts.  (3)  The  decision  of  the 
question  as  to  whether,  in  doubtful  cases,  the  husband  or  wife  is  to  be 
declared  dead  after  lengthy  disappearance  is  to  be  left  to  the  law  of 
the  land.  Cf.  Supra,  443. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  491 

take  place  in  Cincinnati,  after  preliminary  meetings  in 
Cleveland  and  New  York;  this  conference  is  chiefly 
memorable  because  it  gave  the  impulse  to  the  organization 
of  the  Union  of  American  Congregations  and  the  subse- 
quent founding  of  the  Hebrew  Union  College.  I  shall 
consider  this  in  its  place  in  telling  the  story  of  these  two 
institutions. 

In  the  year  1885,  in  the  month  of  November,  from  the 
sixteenth  to  the  eighteenth  days  of  the  month,  the  memor- 
able Pittsburg  Conference  (called  by  Dr.  K.  Kohler)  was 
held.  It  adopted  the  following  declaration  of  principles, 
the  most  succinct  expression  of  the  theology  of  the  reform 
movement  that  had  ever  been  published  to  the  world : 

1.  We  recognize  in  every  religion  an  attempt  to  grasp  the  Infinite, 
and  in  every  mode,  source,  or  book  of  revelation  held  sacred  in  any 
religious  system  the  consciousness  of  the  indwelling  of  God  in  man. 
We  hold  that  Judaism  presents  the  highest  conception  of  the  God- 
idea  as  taught  in  our  Holy  Scriptures  and  developed  and  spiritualized 
by   the   Jewish   teachers,   in   accordance   with   the   moral   and   philo- 
sophical progress  of  their  respective  ages.    We  maintain  that  Judaism 
preserved   and   defended,   midst   continual   struggles   and   trials   and 
under  enforced  isolation,  this  God-idea  as  the  central  religious  truth 
for  the  human  race. 

2.  We  recognize  in  the  Bible  the  record  of  the  consecration  of  the 
Jewish  people  to  its  mission  as  the  priest  of  the  one  God,  and  value 
it  as  the  most  potent  instrument  of  religious  and  moral  instruction. 
We  hold  that  the  modern  discoveries  of  scientific  researches  in  the 
domain  of  nature  and  history  are  not  antagonistic  to  the  doctrines  of 
Judaism,  the  Bible  reflecting  the  primitive  ideas  of  its  own  age,  and 
at   times  clothing   its   conception  of   divine  Providence  and  Justice 
dealing  with  man  in  miraculous  narratives. 

3.  We  recognize  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  a  system  of  training  the 
Jewish  people  for  its  mission  during  its  national  life  in  Palestine, 
and  to-day  we  accept  as  binding  only  its  moral  laws,  and  maintain 
only  such   ceremonies  as   elevate   and  sanctify   our  lives,  but  reject 
all   such  as   are   not   adapted  to    the  views   and  habits  of   modern 
civilization. 

4.  We  hold  that  all  such  Mosaic  and  rabbinical  laws  as  regulate 
diet,   priestly   purity,   and   dress   originated   in   ages   and   under   the 
influence  of  ideas  entirely  foreign  to  our  present  mental  and  spiritual 


492  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

state.  They  fail  to  impress  the  modern  Jew  with  a  spirit  of  priestly 
holiness;  their  observance  in  our  days  is  apt  rather  to  obstruct  than 
to  further  modern  spiritual  elevation. 

5.  We  recognize,  in  the  modern  era  of  universal  culture  of  heart 
and  intellect,  the  approaching  of  the  realization  of  Israel's  great 
Messianic    hope    for    the    establishment    of    the    kingdom    of    truth, 
justice,  and  peace  among  all  men.     We  consider  ourselves  no  longer 
a  nation,  but  a  religious  community,   and  therefore  expect  neither 
a  return  to  Palestine,  nor  a  sacrificial  worship  under  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  nor  the  restoration  of  any  of  the  laws  concerning  the  Jewish 
state. 

6.  We  recognize  in  Judaism  a  progressive  religion,  ever  striving  to 
be  in  accord  with  the  postulates  of  reason.     We  are  convinced  of  the 
utmost  necessity  of  preserving  the  historical  identity  with  our  great 
past.     Christianity  and  Islam  being  daughter  religions  of  Judaism, 
we  appreciate  their  providential  mission  to  aid  in  the  spreading  of 
monotheistic  and  moral  truth.     We  acknowledge  that  the  spirit  of 
broad  humanity  of  our  age  is  our  ally  in  the  fulfillment  of  our  mission, 
and  therefore  we  extend  the  hand  of  fellowship  to  all  who  operate 
with  us  in  the  establishment  of  the  reign  of  truth  and  righteousness 
among  men. 

7.  We  reassert  the  doctrine  of  Judaism  that  the  soul  is  immortal, 
grounding   this  belief   on   the   divine   nature   of   the   human   spirit, 
which  forever  finds  bliss  in  righteousness  and  misery  in  wickedness. 
We  reject  as  ideas  not  rooted  in  Judaism,  the  beliefs  both  in  bodily 
resurrection  and  in  Gehenna  and  Eden  (Hell  and  Paradise)  as  abodes 
for  everlasting  punishment  and  reward. 

8.  In  full  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  Mosaic  legislation,  which 
strives  to  regulate  the  relation  between  rich  and  poor,  we  deem  it 
our  duty  to  participate  in  the  great  task  of  modern  times,  to  solve, 
on  the  basis  of  justice  and  righteousness,  the  problems  presented  by 
the  contrasts  and  evils  of  the  present  organization  of  society.1 

This  platform  aroused  the  usual  storm  of  opposition  in 
the  conservative  and  orthodox  camps,  but  it  still  stands  as 
the  utterance  most  expressive  of  the  teachings  of  reformed 
Judaism. 

In  July,  1889,  the  Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis  was  organized  in  the  city  of  Detroit.  It  has  met 

1  Authentic  Eeport  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Eabbinical  Conference 
held  at  Pittsburg,  Nov.  16,  17,  18,  1885,  Jewish  Reformer  for  Jan.  15, 
1886,  p.  4. 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  493 

in  regular  conference  every  year  since  then.  It  comprises 
in  its  membership,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  all  the  rabbis 
of  the  reform  school  in  the  country.  Although  it  does  not 
exclude  from  membership  any  rabbi,  the  third  article  of  its 
constitution  reading,  * '  All  active  and  retired  rabbis  of  con- 
gregations, and  professors  of  rabbinical  seminaries,  shall 
be  eligible  for  membership,"  yet  it  is  a  well-known  and 
accepted  fact  that  it  is  a  body  of  reform  rabbis.1  It  is  truly 
representative,  including  as  it  does  in  its  membership,  ac- 
cording to  its  last  report,  one  hundred  and  ninety-eight 
rabbis2  located  all  over  the  country,  from  ocean  to  ocean  and 
from  lakes  to  gulf.  The  president  from  the  beginning  to  the 
day  of  his  death,  March  26,  1900,  was  the  founder,  Isaac  M. 
Wise.  In  his  annual  address  delivered  at  the  meeting  of  the 
conference  held  at  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  in  July,  1896,  the  presi- 
dent summed  up  what  the  Central  Conference  had  accom- 
plished. At  the  Cincinnati  Conference  held  in  March,  1899, 
in  honor  of  his  eightieth  birthday,  Dr.  Wise  spoke  in  the 
following  words  of  the  work  of  the  conference  in  the  last 
presidential  address  which  he  delivered:  "By  this  God- 
blessed  organization,  the  American  Rabbis  were  united  in 
a  bond  of  brotherhood,  all  feuds,  strifes,  quarrels  and  ani- 
mosities which  raged  among  us  for  many  years  vanished 
like  the  fog  before  the  sun. ' ' 8 

"The  notable  achievements  of  the  conference  are  the  pro- 
duction and  publication  of  the  Union  Prayer-Book  for 
Jewish  Worship,  its  success  in  representing  Judaism  at. 
the  World's  Parliament  of  Religions  held  at  Chicago  dur- 
ing the  World's  Fair,4  its  declaration  on  the  requirements 
for  the  admission  of  proselytes,5  and,  above  all,  its  uniting 

*Cf.  the  presidential  address  at  the  Atlantic  City  Conference  of 
1898,  Year  Boole  for  1898,  p.  12. 

2  Year  Boole  of  Central  Conference  of  American  Edblis  XVI  (1906), 
pp.  336-42. 

3  Ibid,  for  1899,  p.  28. 

*  Judaism  at  the  World's  Parliament  of  Eeligions.  Cincinnati, 
1894.  *  Infra,  pp.  502-3. 


494  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

in  one  body  the  reform  leaders  of  the  country.  It  has  even 
extended  into  Canada,  and  the  meeting  of  1897  was  held  in 
Montreal.  It  has  published  sixteen  year-books,  which  con- 
tain, besides  the  record  of  the  proceedings,  a  large  number 
of  addresses  and  learned  papers  read  at  the  sessions. 

The  principles  of  the  men  forming  the  conference  were 
so  well  known  that  there  was  not  thought  to  be  any  necessity 
for  making  a  declaration  of  principles,  notably  as  at  its 
second  meeting  the  conference  passed  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  all  the  declarations  of  reform  adopted  at  previous 
rabbinical  conferences  in  Europe  and  this  country  be  col- 
lected and  recorded  in  the  year-book,  and  be  considered 
the  working  basis  of  this  conference. 1 

At  the  meeting  held  in  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  in  July,  1895, 
the  president,  in  his  address,  proposed  for  discussion  and 
decision  several  questions,  one  of  which,  bearing  on  the 
attitude  of  Reform  Judaism,  must  be  referred  to  here, 
notably  as  it  involved  a  far-reaching  issue  and  concerned 
a  question  of  principle.  ' '  What  is  our  relation  in  all  relig- 
ious matters  to  our  own  post-biblical,  our  patristic  litera- 
ture, including  the  Talmud,  casuists,  responses,  and  com- 
mentaries?" The  committee  to  whom  this  was  referred 
reported  as  follows: 

Your  committee,  to  whom  that  part  of  the  president's  message  was 
referred  which  reads,  "What  is  our  relation  in  all  religious  matters 
to  our  own  post-biblical,  our  patristic  literature,  including  the  Tal- 
mud, casuists,  responses,  and  commentaries,"  begs  leave  to  report 
that,  from  the  standpoint  of  Eeform  Judaism,  the  whole  post-biblical 
and  patristic  literature,  including  the  Talmud,  casuists,  responses,  and 
commentaries,  is,  and  can  be  considered  as,  nothing  more  or  less  than 
' '  religious  literature. ' '  As  such  it  is  of  inestimable  value.  It  is  the 
treasure-house  in  which  the  successive  ages  deposited  their  concep- 
tions of  the  great  and  fundamental  principles  of  Judaism,  and  their 
contributions  to  the  never-ceasing  endeavor  to  elucidate  the  same. 
Consciously  or  unconsciously,  every  age  has  added  a  wing  to  this 
great  treasure-house,  and  the  architecture  and  construction  of  each 
wing  bear  the  indelible  marks  of  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  the 

1  Tear  Book  for  1890-91,  pp.  31  and  80-125. 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  495 

time  in  which  it  was  erected.  Our  age  is  engaged  in  the  same  task. 
We,  too,  have  to  contribute  to  the  enlargement  of  this  treasure-house; 
but  we  have  to  do  it  in  our  own  way,  as  the  spirit  of  our  time  directs, 
without  any  slavish  imitation  of  the  past. 

To  have  awakened  the  consciousness  of  this  historic  fact  is  the 
great  merit  of  Reform  Judaism;  and  the  more  this  consciousness 
grows  upon  our  mind,  the  more  the  conditions  and  environments  of 
our  modern  life  force  it  upon  us,  the  more  persistently  we  have  to 
assert:  that  our  relations  in  all  religious  matters  are  in  no  way 
authoritatively  and  finally  determined  by  any  portion  of  our  post- 
biblical  and  patristic  literature.1 

This  report  was  considered  at  the  last  session  of  the  con- 
ference. Many  of  the  members  had  left  for  their  homes, 
so  that  only  twenty  were  present.  The  report  called  forth 
long  and  warm  discussion.  A  number  of  the  most  pro- 
nounced reformers  took  the  ground  that  the  report  did  not 
go  far  enough,  and  that  it  ought  to  have  stated  the  attitude 
also  in  reference  to  the  biblical  books.  They  declared  that 
in  the  stream  of  tradition  the  biblical  books  must  be  con- 
sidered with  the  post-biblical,  that  the  two  cannot  be  separ- 
ated. Therefore  they  voted  against  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, which  was  carried  by  the  narrow  margin  of  eleven 
to  nine.  This  action  of  the  conference  called  forth  great 
excitement.  The  conservative  press  naturally  interpreted 
the  vote  as  an  almost  equal  declaration  in  favor  of  the  bind- 
ing authority  of  the  Talmud,  misrepresenting  altogether 
the  opinions  of  those  who  had  voted  in  the  negative.  In 
his  address  at  the  opening  of  the  next  conference  in  July, 
1896,  the  president  referred  to  the  matter  as  follows: 

The  vote  of  eleven  to  nine  <(  placed  the  conference  on  record  that 
nine  out  of  twenty  hold  the  post-biblical  or  patristic  literature  as 
authoritative  and  final  for  us  in  all  religious  matters.  So  the  vote 
was  generally  understood  by  outsiders,  and  this  placed  the  conference 
in  a  ridiculous  position  of  inconsistency,  the  same  which  I.  M.  Jost 
charges  on  German  conferences  in  his  time.  As  this  was  positively 
not  the  import  of  that  vote,  it  places  the  nine  of  the  opposition  in 
a  false  light  before  the  world  as  being  adherents  and  advocates  of 
orthodox  rabbinism.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  that  a  recon- 

1  Year  Boole  for  1895,  p.  63. 


496  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

sideration  of  the  said  vote  be  moved  by  some  one  who  voted  on  it  in 
the  affirmative.  We  must  sustain  the  position  we  took  from  the 
beginning:  that  this  conference  consists  of  the  reform  element  only 
and  exclusively,  and  its  standpoint  is  historical  Judaism,  that  is  the 
Judaism  of  all  ages,  and  not  that  of  one  period,  class,  or  people.  We 
cannot  submit  to  the  legalism  of  the  Talmud,  the  Kabbalism  of  the 
Sohar,  the  literalism  of  the  Karaites,  or  even  the  rationalism  of 
Maimonides  and  Mendelssohn,  because  either  of  them  was  a  child  of 
his  respective  age  and  not  of  the  Judaism  of  all  ages.  And  this  only 
and  exclusively  is  our  basis.'" 

The  president's  address  was,  as  usual,  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  three ;  two  of  these  were  among  the  nine  that  had 
voted  in  the  negative  at  the  preceding  conference.  In  their 
report  they  stated  in  reference  to  this  part  of  the  address : 

Those  who  were  present  at  the  conference  held  last  year  in 
Eochester,  and  who  heard  the  discussion  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Post-Biblical  Literature,  know  full  well  that  the  nine 
who  voted  against  it  as  it  was  presented  and  adopted  had  no  inten- 
tion of  declaring  in  favor  of  the  Talmud  and  the  later  codifications 
as  an  authority  in  religious  matters,  and  if  their  vote  was  so  con- 
strued, it  was  certainly  misunderstood.2 

This  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  conference,  and 
thus  its  tendency  of  thought  as  a  reform  body  once  again 
emphasized.  In  his  presidential  address  at  the  Montreal 
Conference  in  1897,  Dr.  Wise  made  reference  to  the  Zion- 
istic  movement  which  was  then  beginning  to  agitate  the 
Jewish  world  and  declared  that  l  i  the  honor  and  position  of 
American  Israel  demand  imperatively  that  this  conference, 
which  does  represent  the  sentiment  of  American  Judaism, 
minus  the  idiosyncrasies  of  ....  late  immigrants,  do  de- 
clare officially  the  American  standpoint  in  this  unpleasant 
episode  of  our  history. " 3  In  accordance  with  this  sug- 
gestion, the  conference,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  put  itself  on 
record  as  follows:  Resolved,  That  we  totally  disapprove  of 
any  attempt  for  the  establishment  of  a  Jewish  state.  Such 
attempts  show  a  misunderstanding  of  Israel's  mission, 

1  Tear  BooJc  for  1896,  pp.  16,  17.  *  Ibid.,  p.  10. 

8  Tear  Boole  for  1898,  p.  XII. 


EEFOBM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  497 

which  from  the  narrow  political  and  national  field  has  been 
expanded  to  the  promotion  among  the  whole  human  race 
of  the  broad  and  universalistic  religion  first  proclaimed  by 
the  Jewish  prophets.  Such  attempts  do  not  benefit,  but 
infinitely  harm,  our  Jewish  brethren  where  they  are  still 
persecuted  by  confirming  the  assertion  of  their  enemies 
that  the  Jews  are  foreigners  in  the  countries  in  which  they 
are  at  home  and  of  which  they  are  everywhere  the  most 
loyal  and  patriotic  citizens. 

We  reaffirm  that  the  object  of  Judaism  is  not  political 
nor  national,  but  spiritual,  and  addresses  itself  to  the  con- 
tinuous growth  of  peace,  justice,  and  love  in  the  human 
race,  to  a  Messianic  time  when  all  men  will  recognize  that 
they  form  one  great  brotherhood  for  the  establishment  of 
God's  Kingdom  on  earth.1 

The  Prayer-Book 

The  public  expression  of  a  faith  is  its  public  service. 
That  reforms  were  necessary  here  was  the  conviction  of 
all  the  early  reformers.  The  language  of  prayer,  albeit 
the  sacred  tongue,  was  unintelligible  to  most  of  the  worship- 
ers. Customs  were  in  vogue  at  the  service  that  detracted 
much  from  making  it  devotional  and  reverential.  In  the 
prayers  hopes  were  given  expression  to,  and  petitions  di- 
rected to  the  throne  of  divine  grace,  which  were  not  living 
hopes  and  petitions.  Doctrines  were  expressed  that  were 
no  longer  the  beliefs  of  the  people.  Naturally,  attention 
was  almost  immediately  given  to  making  the  public  service 
a  true  reflection  of  the  changes  that  had  come  upon  men's 
thoughts.  The  traditional  service  was  modified  and 
changed.  We  have  seen  how  from  the  very  beginning  this 
matter  engaged  the  attention  of  the  reformers.2  The  first 
attempt  at  a  Prayer-Book  embodying  the  principles  of  re- 
form in  the  United  States,  was  that  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
L.  Merzbacher,  and  adopted  as  its  ritual  by  the  Emanuel 

1  Tear  Boole  for  1898,  XLI.  •  Supra, 

32 


498  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

congregation  of  New  York  in  1854.  This  Prayer-Book 
greatly  abbreviated  the  traditional  service,  and  although 
not  as  thoroughly  and  consistently  reformed  as  it  might 
have  been,  was  yet  a  great  step  forward  at  the  time.  In 
the  year  1856,  shortly  after  landing  in  this  country,  Dr. 
David  Einhorn  published  the  first  part  of  his  Olath  Tamid: 
a  Prayer-Book  for  Jewish  Reform  Congregations.  At  the 
same  time  he  set  forth  clearly  the  principles  that  had  guided 
him  in  writing  the  book.1  He  expressed  the  matter  well 
when  he  wrote — 

It  is  a  clear  cind  undeniable  fact  that  the  traditional  service  has 
no  charm  for  the  present  generation;  the  old  prayers  have  become 
for  the  most  part  untruths  for  present  conditions  and  views,  and 
neither  the  organ  nor  the  choir,  nor  yet  youthful  memories  that 
cluster  about  the  synagogue,  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  bareness,  to 
banish  the  lack  of  devotion,  to  fill  again  the  vacant  places.  Salvation 
will  come  only  from  a  complete  reform  of  the  public  service  which, 
founded  on  principle,  will  enable  the  worshiper  to  find  himself  and 
his  God  in  the  sacred  halls.  .  .  .  Dogmatically,  this  prayer-book  is 
differentiated  from  the  traditional  order  by  the  omission  of  prayers 
for  the  restoration  of  the  sacrificial  cult  and  the  return  to  Palestine, 
t.  e.,  the  re-institution  of  the  Jewish  kingdom,  as  well  as  the  change  of 
the  doctrine  of  bodily  resurrection  into  the  idea  of  a  purely  spiritual 
immortality. 

Although  the  book  followed  the  traditional  order  of 
prayers  in  a  measure,  and  retained  a  number  of  prayers  in 
the  Hebrew,  yet  the  greater  part  of  the  ritual  was  in  the 
vernacular.  In  the  Hebrew  text,  too,  such  changes  as 
were  necessitated  by  the  changes  of  belief  indicated  above 
were  made. 

There  now  appeared  from  time  to  time  a  number  of 
Prayer-Books,  such  as  the  Minhag  America,  by  Isaac  M. 
Wise,  adopted  by  most  of  the  congregations  in  the  southern 
and  western  sections  of  the  country;  the  Abodatli  Tisrael, 
by  B.  Szold  and  M.  Jastrow ;  the  Hadar  Hattefillah,  by  A. 
Huebsch;  besides  these,  quite  a  number  of  congregations 
had  individual  Prayer-Books  prepared  by  their  ministers 

1  Sinai,  vol.  I,  pp.  91-100,  129-139. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  499 

for  their  use.  There  was  thus  a  wondrous  variety.  As 
time  wore  on  it  was  felt  that  there  was  a  great  need  for  a 
Prayer-Book  that  could  be  adopted  by  the  reformed  con- 
gregations everywhere.  There  were  obstacles  in  the  way 
of  taking  any  one  of  the  existing  books.  At  the  meeting 
of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Kabbis  held  in  Bal- 
timore in  1891,  the  subject  of  a  Union  Prayer-Book  was 
first  broached.  A  ritual  committee  was  appointed  that 
labored  for  three  years,  and  at  the  meeting  in  Atlantic 
City  in  July,  1894,  the  book  as  submitted  by  the  committee 
was  ratified.  This  book  expresses  in  its  prayers  and  medi- 
tations the  doctrines  of  Reform  Judaism.  In  the  report 
accompanying  the  MS.  of  the  second  part  of  the  Prayer- 
Book,  the  services  for  New  Year's  Day  and  the  Day  of 
Atonement,  the  Ritual  Committee  stated  the  principle  that 
had  guided  it  in  its  work : 

Imbued  with  the  earnestness  of  the  task  that  was  laid  upon  us, 
vre  endeavored  to  conform  the  ritual  for  these  two  great  holidays 
to  the  spirit  and  principle  of  the  first  part  of  our  Union  Prayer- 
Book,  to  unite  the  soul-stirring  reminiscences  of  the  past  with  the 
urgent  demands  of  the  present,  and  to  enhance  the  solemnity  of  the 
service  by  combining  the  two  essential  elements,  the  ancient  time- 
honored  formulas  with  modern  prayers  and  meditations  in  the 
vernacular.1 

That  the  book  has  met  the  requirements  and  the  expecta- 
tions of  the  congregations  may  be  gathered  from  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  adopted  by  two  hundred  and  thirty-four 
congregations,  among  them  many  of  the  largest  and  most 
influential  in  the  land.  This  has  been  the  most  decided 
step  towards  a  real  union  that  the  reformed  congregations 
of  the  country  have  yet  taken. 

The  Proselyte  Question 

Is  Judaism  a  missionary  religion?  Shall  Judaism  put 
forth  special  efforts  to  induce  men  and  women  not  born  in 
the  faith  to  become  identified  with  it?  These  questions 

1  Year  Boole  for  1894-5,  p.  32. 


500  THE  EEFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

have  often  agitated  Jewish  thinkers,  and  there  are  the  two 
well-defined  positions,  the  advocates  of  the  one  claiming 
that  Judaism 's  truth  will  eventually  prevail  without  active 
efforts  being  put  forth  to  gain  adherents  to  its  doctrines, 
while  others  hold  that  there  are  at  present  great  oppor- 
tunities for  Judaism,  and  that  if  the  proper  steps  were 
taken,  many  who  are  dissatisfied  with  other  creeds  will 
eagerly  take  refuge  within  its  ranks.  If,  then,  there  be 
those  who  desire  to  become  Jews,  what  shall  be  the  require- 
ments for  admission  into  the  faith  ?  Is  a  simple  expression 
of  this  desire  and  a  confession  of  faith  sufficient,  or  shall 
initiatory  rites  be  required?  Notably  has  it  been  the  ques- 
tion of  circumcision  about  which  the  controversy  has 
turned.  If  true  to  its  own  professions,  must  not  Reform 
Judaism  declare  that  the  expression  of  belief  in  the  dis- 
tinguishing doctrines  of  the  faith  on  the  part  of  the  would- 
be  proselyte  is  all-sufficient  for  entrance  into  the  religion? 
This  question  has  come  up  time  and  again  for  discussion, 
both  privately  and  in  rabbinical  conferences,  in  the  United 
States,  and  decided  expression  has  been  given  and  decided 
action  taken. 

The  first  public  statement  in  the  matter,  though  it  did 
not  touch  the  question  proper,  was  the  resolution  passed  by 
the  Philadelphia  Conference  in  1869 : 

The  male  child  of  a  Jewish  mother — in  accordance  with  a  never- 
disputed  principle  of  Judaism — is  no  less  than  her  female  child  to  be 
considered  a  Jew  by  descent,  even  though  he  be  uncircumcised. 

In  the  discussion  precipitated  by  this  resolution  the  ques- 
tion of  the  circumcision  of  proselytes  was  debated ;  although 
the  greater  number  of  the  rabbis  present  expressed  them- 
selves to  the  effect  that  circumcision  should  not  be  con- 
sidered a  conditio  sine  qua  non  for  admission  into  Juda- 
ism, *  yet  there  was  no  further  action  taken  than  that  indi- 
cated by  the  resolution. 

In  1878  the  Eev.  M.  Spitz  of  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  addressed 

1  ProtoTcolle,  pp.  39,  41. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  5Q1 

a  letter  to  the  rabbis  of  the  country,  requesting  their 
opinion  as  to  the  right  and  advisability  of  accepting  a 
proselyte  without  circumcision ;  a  case  in  point  had  occurred 
in  his  city,  and  as  he  did  not  desire  to  act  on  his  own  respon- 
sibility he  took  this  course.  The  letter  called  forth  a 
lengthy  response  from  Dr.  B.  Felsenthal,  published  as  a 
pamphlet,  Zur  Proselytenfrage  im  Judenthum,  in  which 
the  position  was  taken  and  defended  from  the  historical 
standpoint  that  circumcision  is  not  necessary.  Dr.  M. 
Mielziner  took  the  opposite  view  in  an  article  which  ap- 
peared in  the  Jewish  Messenger.1  No  further  opinions 
were  elicited.  Rabbi  Spitz  refused  to  admit  the  young  man 
without  the  initiatory  rite.  The  next  public  step  in  the 
matter  was  the  action  taken  by  the  Sinai  congregation  of 
Chicago  (which,  under  the  leadership  of  Emil  G.  Hirsch,  is 
known  as  the  most  radical  of  American  Jewish  congrega- 
tions), at  its  meeting  held  on  April  9,  1885,  when  it  was  re- 
solved— 

That  the  Abrahamitic  rite  is  not  an  essential  condition,  the  com- 
pliance with  which  must  precede  or  follow  admittance  to  membership 
in  Sinai  congregation.* 

At  the  Pittsburg  Conference  held  in  November,  1885,  the 
question  was  again  up  for  discussion,  and  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted: 

Inasmuch  as  the  so-called  Abrahamitic  rite  is  by  many,  and  the 
most  competent,  rabbis  no  longer  considered  as  a  conditio  sine  qua 
non  of  receiving  male  gentiles  into  the  fold  of  Judaism,  and  inas- 
much as  a  new  legislation  on  this  and  kindred  subjects  is  one  of  the 
most  imperative  and  practical  demands  of  our  reform  movement,  be  it 

Resolved,  that  a  committee  of  five,  one  of  them  to  be  the  president 
of  this  conference,  be  entrusted  with  framing  a  full  report  to  be 
submitted  for  final  action  to  the  next  conference.8 

This  resolution  clearly  indicates  the  temper  of  the  con- 
1 1879,  No.  12. 

'pONl  prn  pi.  Extracts  from  Proceedings  of  Chicago  Sinai  Con- 
gregation at  its  annual  meeting,  March  26,  1885,  and  special  meeting, 
April  9,  1885,  p.  4. 

'Authentic  Report,  etc.,  Jewish  Reformer,  Jan.  22,  1886,  p.  4. 


502  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

f erence  in  the  matter ;  but,  since  the  next  conference,  called 
to  meet  in  Cincinnati  in  June,  1886,  did  not,  because  of 
unforeseen  circumstances,  convene,  the  resolution  of  the 
Pittsburg  Conference  came  to  naught. 

On  July  23,  1890,  Rabbi  Henry  Berkowitz,  of  Kansas 
City,  Mo.,  being  applied  to  by  a  Christian,  who  did  not 
wish  to  submit  to  circumcision,  for  admission  to  Judaism, 
also  addressed  a  circular  letter  to  the  rabbis  of  the  country, 
asking  for  their  opinion  arid  advice.  He  received  a  number 
of  responses;  some  rabbis  had  expressed  their  opinions  on 
the  subject  before  this;  in  published  views  or  in  responses 
the  following  had  declared  that  proselytes  could  be  admitted 
without  circumcision:  Rabbis  I.  M.  Wise,  B.  Felsenthal, 
G.  Gottheil,  K.  Kohler,  A.  Moses,  E.  G.  Hirsch,  M.  Lands- 
berg,  E.  Schreiber,  S.  Hecht,  M.  Samfield;  of  an  opposite 
tenor  were  the  views  of  Rabbis  M.  Mielziner,  M.  Spitz,  and 
H.  Iliowizi.1  Dr.  Berkowitz  received  the  young  man  into 
the  faith  without  his  having  submitted  to  the  initiatory 
rite. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Central  Conference  held  at  Balti- 
more in  July,  1891,  these  responses  were  submitted  and 
several  papers  read  on  the  subject.  The  whole  matter  was 
referred  to  a  committee  of  five.2  At  the  meeting  of  the 
conference  held  the  following  year  in  the  city  of  New  York 
the  report  of  this  committee  was  submitted,  and  the  whole 
subject  was  again  thoroughly  discussed.8 

The  resolution,  as  finally  adopted  at  the  meeting,  reads 
thus: 

Besolved,  that  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  assem- 
bled this  day  in  this  city  of  New  York,  considers  it  lawful  and  proper 
for  any  officiating  rabbi,  assisted  by  no  less  than  two  associates,  and 
in  the  name  and  with  the  consent  of  his  congregation,  to  accept  into 
the  sacred  covenant  of  Israel,  and  declare  fully  affiliated  with  the 

1  These  responses,  together  with  other  papers  on  the  Milath  Gerim 
question,  were  published  in  the  Tear  Book  of  the  Central  Conference 
for  1891-92,  pp.  66-128. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  24.  •  Ibid,  for  1892-93,  pp.  15-19,  33-37. 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  503 

congregation  nBTlpHfi?  12"!  53*?,  anv  honorable  and  intelligent  per- 
son who  desires  such  affiliation,  without  any  initiatory  rite,  ceremony, 
or  observance  whatever;  provided  such  person  be  sufficiently  ac- 
quainted with  the  faith,  doctrine,  and  religious  usages  of  Israel;  that 
nothing  derogatory  to  such  person's  moral  and  mental  character  is 
suspected;  that  it  is  his  or  her  free  will  and  choice  to  embrace  the 
cause  of  Judaism,  and  that  he  or  she  declare  verbally,  and  in  &  docu- 
ment signed  and  sealed  before  such  officiating  rabbi  and  his  asso- 
ciates, his  or  her  intention  and  firm  resolve — 

1.  To  worship  the  One  Sole  and  Eternal  God  and  none  besides 
him. 

2.  To  be  conscientiously  governed  in  his  or  her  doings  and  omissions 
in  life  by  God 's  laws,  ordained  for  the  child  and  image  of  the  Father 
and   Maker   of    all,    the   sanctified   son   or    daughter   of   the   divine 
covenant. 

3.  To  adhere  in  life  and  death,  actively  and  faithfully,  to  the  sacred 
cause  and  mission  of  Israel,  as  marked  out  in  Holy  Writ.1 

Thus  this  vexed  question  was  finally  disposed  of,  and  the 
Central  Conference  of  American  Kabbis  has  placed  itself 
on  record,  acting  in  the  true  spirit  of  that  larger  interpre- 
tation of  the  faith  which  is  the  only  consistent  course  for 
the  exponents  of  Reform  Judaism  to  take. 

The  Sabbath  Question 

As  in  Europe,  so  also  in  the  United  States,  the  question 
of  Sabbath  observance  has  long  been  acute.  Economic  and 
social  conditions  compel  the  great  mass  of  people  engaged 
in  mercantile  pursuits  to  follow  their  ordinary  vocations 
on  the  Sabbath.  The  conflict  between  the  religious  observ- 
ance and  life  is  constant  here.  In  a  foregoing  chapter2 
the  subject  has  been  treated  in  all  its  phases,  hence  nothing 
further  is  now  necessary  than  to  indicate  the  practical 
steps  that  have  been  taken  in  the  United  States  to  solve  the 
difficulty  presented  by  the  Sabbath  problem. 

In  1866  Rabbi  Isaac  M.  Wise,  having  noted  that  many 
could  not  attend  the  services  on  Saturday  morning,  insti- 

1  Year  Boole  of  the  Central  Conference  for  1891-92,  p.  36. 
1  Supra  275  ff . 


504  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

tuted  a  late  service  with  lecture  on  Sabbath  eve.  This 
innovation  made  rapid  headway,  for  it  seemed  to  meet  the 
double  desire  of  retaining  the  Saturday  Sabbath  and  to 
furnish  the  opportunity  for  all  to  attend  divine  worship 
at  a  leisure  hour.  There  have  always  been  those,  however, 
who  have  felt  that  a  late  Friday  evening  service  is  harmful 
rather  than  helpful  in  the  preservation  of  the  Sabbath 
spirit,  since  it  induces  a  feeling  that  by  the  attendance  at 
this  service  the  whole  duty  to  the  Sabbath  has  been  per- 
formed, and  the  day  itself  can  be  spent  in  accordance  with 
individual  pleasure.1  The  other  remedy  applied  to  meet 
the  situation  is  the  Sunday  service.  This  has  assumed  two 
aspects,  the  advocacy  of  a  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day on  the  one  hand  and  the  retention  of  the  historical 
Sabbath,  with  a  supplementary  service  on  Sunday,  on  the 
other.  The  only  congregation  which  has  carried  out  the 
former  program  is  Sinai,  of  Chicago,  which  introduced 
services  on  Sunday  on  January  18,  1874 ;  for  thirteen  years 
services  were  held  on  both  days,  but  in  1887,  under  the 
leadership  of  Dr.  Emil  G.  Hirsch,  services  on  Saturday  were 
discontinued. 

The  first  attempt  to  hold  services  on  Sunday  was  made  in 
Baltimore  in  1854  by  a  society  calling  itself  "The  Hebrew 
Reformed  Association ;' '  after  a  brief  trial  of  six  months 
the  attempt  was  abandoned.  It  was  in  the  same  city  that 
Sunday  services  were  again  instituted  twenty  years  later 
by  the  Har  Sinai  congregation,  where,  with  occasional 
lapses,  they  have  continued  to  this  day.  As  already  stated 
Sinai  congregation  of  Chicago  instituted  Sunday  services 
in  1874,  and  on  October  13,  1881,  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
Keneseth  Israel  congregation  of  Philadelphia  adopted  a 

1  Cf .  the  words  of  Dr.  K.  Kohler :  ' '  Late  Friday  evening  services 
are  altogether  an  innovation — an  innovation  of  a  dubious  character, 
in  so  far  as  they  make  those  who  attend  them  feel  that  they  have 
done  their  duty  toward  the  Sabbath."  Year  Book  of  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis  for  1905,  62. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  505 

resolution  to  make  provision  for  a  service  on  Sunday. 
This  resolution  was  indorsed  by  the  congregation ;  the  rabbi 
of  this  congregation,  Dr.  Samuel  Hirsch,  had  been  the  first 
to  broach  the  subject  in  a  public  Jewish  forum, 1  and  had 
been  a  consistent  advocate  of  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath 
to  Sunday  throughout  his  career.  The  services  on  Sunday 
conducted  by  his  successor,  Dr.  Joseph  Krauskopf,  since 
1887  have  been  a  feature  of  the  congregation's  activity. 

Since  then  Sunday  services  have  been  instituted,  and  are 
at  present  conducted  in  the  following  congregations  besides 
the  three  already  mentioned:  Emanuel  and  Bethel,  New 
York  City ;  Berith  Kodesh,  Rochester,  N.  Y. ;  Adath  Israel, 
Boston,  Mass. ;  Tiffereth  Israel,  Cleveland,  0. ;  Isaiah  and 
Anshe  Maariv,  Chicago,  111. ;  Temple  Israel,  St.  Louis,  Mo. ; 
Adath  Israel,  Louisville,  Ky. ;  Bethel,  Detroit,  Mich. ;  Rodef 
Shalom,  Pittsburg,  Pa. ;  Hebrew  Benevolent,  Atlanta,  Ga. 

The  Sabbath  question  has  also  been  debated  at  rabbinical 
Conferences.  At  the  session  of  November  18,  1885,  of  the 
Pittsburg  Conference  the  following  resolution  was  unan- 
imously adopted:  " Whereas  we  recognize  the  importance 
of  maintaining  the  historical  Sabbath  as  a  bond  with  our 
great  past  and  a  symbol  of  the  unity  of  Judaism  the  world 
over ;  and  whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  there  is  a  vast  number  of  workingmen  and  others  who, 
from  some  cause  or  other,  are  not  able  to  attend  the  services 
on  the  sacred  day  of  rest ;  be  it  resolved  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  spirit  of  Judaism  or  its  laws  to  prevent  the  in- 
troduction of  Sunday  services  in  localities  where  the  neces- 
sity for  such  services  appears  or  is  felt. ' ' 

At  the  New  Orleans  Meeting  of  the  Central  Conference 
of  American  Rabbis  in  May,  1902,  Dr.  Jacob  Voorsanger, 
of  San  Francisco,  presented  an  exhaustive  paper  on  the 
Sabbath  question  in  which  he  set  forth  at  length  the  diffi- 
culties connected  with  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  al- 
though he  argued  strongly  for  the  retention  of  the  histor- 

1  At  the  Brunswick  Rabbinical  Conference  in  1844.     Supra,  219, 


506  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ical  Sabbath. 1  The  discussion  which  followed  centered 
mainly  about  the  question  of  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath 
to  Sunday.  The  sentiment  of  those  present  was  almost 
unanimously  against  such  transfer,  although  the  advis- 
ability and  even  necessity  of  a  supplementary  service  on 
Sunday  was  conceded  by  most. 

A  Commission  to  present  a  report  to  the  next  Conference 
on  seven  points  suggested  for  consideration  by  Dr.  Voor- 
sanger  in  his  paper  was  appointed,  consisting  of  Rabbis  J. 
Voorsanger,  G.  Deutsch,  H.  G.  Enelow,  M.  Heller,  L.  Har- 
rison, S.  Sale,  and  S.  H.  Sonneschein. 

At  the  Detroit  Conference  in  July,  1903,  the  chairman  of 
this  Commission  presented  a  report  consisting  of  several 
treatises  on  one  or  other  of  these  seven  points  by  three 
members  of  the  Commission— Voorsanger,  Enelow  and 
Sonneschein.  On  the  all-important  question  of  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Conference  towards  the  Sabbath  the  Commission 
reported  as  follows :  ' '  The  Conference  is  composed  of  rabbis 
and  ministers,  to  each  of  whom  belongs  the  inalienable  right 
of  shaping  his  religious  professions  in  accordance  with  his 
religious  opinions.  In  a  deliberative  body  of  such  a  char- 
acter, there  can  be  no  unanimity  of  opinion  upon  so  im- 
portant a  subject  as  the  Sabbath,  and  the  problem  involved 
in  its  consideration.  Yet  the  Conference  declares,  without 
any  hesitancy  whatever,  that  its  attitude  towards  the  Sab- 
bath must  remain  unaltered  until  a  stronger  voice  than  its 
own  shall  demand  an  urgent  inquiry  into  the  present  dis- 
order, and  the  incongruity  presented  by  theoretical  pro- 
fession and  practical  violation  of  the  day  of  rest. "  This 
implied  the  urgency  of  forming  a  representative  organiza- 
tion of  "all  Israel"  for  the  consideration  of  and  pronounce- 
ment upon  this  vital  question  of  Sabbath  observance  or 
rather  Sabbath  violation.  Rabbi  J.  Silverman  offered  as 
a  substitute  for  this  paragraph  the  following:  "That  this 
Conference  declares  itself  in  favor  of  maintaining  the 
1  Year  Boole  of  the  Central  Conference  for  1902,  103-122. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  507 

historical  Sabbath  as  the  fundamental  institution  of  Juda- 
ism and  of  exerting  every  effort  to  improve  its  observance ; 
and  instructs  the  Executive  Committee  to  appoint  a  com- 
mittee to  study  the  methods  of  carrying  this  declaration 
into  effect,  and  to  report  to  the  Conference,  whenever,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Executive  Committee,  the  special  com- 
mittee has  made  an  adequate  report  as  to  methods. ' n  This 
was  carried  by  a  vote  of  twenty-three  to  nine  in  the  closing 
hour  of  the  meeting.  This  action  places  the  Conference  on 
record  as  favoring  the  retention  of  the  historical  Sabbath. 
However,  this  proceeding  should  not  be  understood  as  im- 
plying objection  to  a  service  on  Sunday,  since  a  number 
of  the  men  who  voted  for  it  hold  such  services.  The  Con- 
ference took  a  definite  stand  in  this  matter  of  Sunday  serv- 
ices when  a  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  ritual 
for  use  at  such  services.  Although  the  committee  was 
designated  "Committee  on  Week-Day  Services,"  it  was 
definitely  understood  that  its  work  was  to  be  the  prepara- 
tion of  a  ritual  to  be  used  in  such  congregations  as  conduct 
services  on  Sunday.  The  committee  was  so  named  to  give 
point  to  the  stand  of  the  Conference  that  not  Sunday,  but 
Saturday,  is  the  Sabbath,  while  the  first  day  of  the  week 
has  no  sacred  character  from  the  Jewish  point  of  view. 
This  committee,  consisting  of  Rabbis  H.  G.  Enelow,  L.  M. 
Franklin,  M.  J.  Gries,  L.  Harrison,  and  S.  Schulman  pre- 
pared such  a  ritual,  which  has  been  printed  as  manuscript. 
At  the  Cleveland  Conference  in  1905  a  committee  was 
provided  for  to  gather  data  on  the  influence  of  Sunday 
services  for  good  or  ill  in  the  cause  of  Judaism.  Rabbis 
H.  G.  Enelow,  L.  M.  Franklin,  M.  Heller,  E.  G.  Hirsch, 
S.  Hirschberg,  J.  Krauskopf,  C.  A.  Rubenstein,  and  S. 
Sale  were  named  members  of  this  committee.  The  burden 
of  the  exhaustive  report  of  the  committee  which  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Indianapolis  Conference  in  July,  1906,  was 
to  the  effect  that  these  services  had  done  much  in  nearly 

1  Year  Boole  of  Central  Conference  for  1903,  99. 


508  THE  KEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

every  locality  in  which,  they  had  been  introduced  towards 
reviving  interest  in  Judaism  and  its  teachings.1  The  Confer- 
ence has  taken  official  recognition  of  the  Sunday  service. 
The  members,  with  the  fewest  exceptions,  believe  that  the 
Saturday  Sabbath  is  the  only  Sabbath  for  the  Jew;  but 
many  of  them  likewise  believe  that  by  an  additional  service 
on  Sunday  hundreds  and  thousands  can  be  reached  who 
would  otherwise  stand  altogether  outside  of  Judaism's  in- 
fluence. Not  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Sunday  is 
advocated,  but  a  way  out  of  the  supreme  difficulty  pre- 
sented by  the  conflict  between  Sabbath  observance  and  the 
demands  of  life,  and  this,  it  is  believed,  is  achieved  by  a 
supplementary  service  on  the  civil  day  of  rest. 

This  has  been  the  doctrinal  development,  if  it  may  be  so 
termed,  of  the  reform  movement  in  the  United  States. 
Accompanying  this  doctrinal  development  there  have  been 
introduced  a  great  number  of  ceremonial  reforms.  Each 
one  of  these  reforms  was  adopted  individually  by  each 
congregation  that  introduced  it.  Every  innovation  met,  in 
most  instances,  with  stubborn  opposition,  and,  in  some 
cases,  was  the  cause  of  division  in,  and  secession  from,  the 
congregation.  But  these  things  are  happily  forgotten  now. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  give  the  account  of  how  and  when  each 

1  Year  Boole  for  1906,  87-113.  The  conclusions  reached  by  the  com- 
mittee as  a  result  of  its  investigations  are  as  follows:  (1)  The  Sun- 
day service  is  found  to  be  helpful  to  the  maintenance  and  cultivation 
of  the  religious  spirit  among  the  people,  particularly  the  men  and  the 
young  people.  (2)  In  view  of  the  non-attendance  of  the  people  in 
general  on  Saturday,  the  Sunday  service  affords  a  weekly  opportunity 
for  worship,  apart  altogether  from  the  question  of  Sabbath  observ- 
ance. (3)  The  Sunday  service  brings  the  congregation,  especially  the 
male  portion  thereof,  under  the  more  direct  and  more  constant  in- 
fluence of  the  pulpit,  which  often  leads  to  a  more  energetic  communal 
and  congregational  activity.  (4)  The  Sunday  service,  in  almost 
every  instance,  is  attended  by  a  considerable  number  of  non-Jews, 
who  in  that  way  are  given  enlightenment  on  Jews  and  Judaism,  and 
are  afforded  an  opportunity  for  possessing  themselves  of  our  concep- 
tion of  religion. 


REFORM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  509 

and  every  one  of  these  reforms  was  introduced  into  each 
congregation.  Sufficient  to  say  that  now,  owing  to  these 
reforms  in  the  ritual,  the  service  in  the  reform  congrega- 
tions is  decorous,  uplifting  and  reverential.  The  chief 
liturgical  and  ritual  reforms  may  be  summed  up  as  con- 
sisting in  the  reading  of  prayers  in  the  vernacular,  as  dis- 
cussed above,  the  introduction  of  the  organ  with  mixed 
choirs,  the  abolition  of  the  women's  gallery1  and  the  in- 
troduction of  family  pews, 2  the  worship  with  uncovered 
heads,  the  substitution  of  the  confirmation  ceremony  for 
boys  and  girls  in  place  of  the  Bar  Mitzwah  for  boys  alone,8 
the  abolition  of  the  calling  to  the  Torah,  the  selling  of 
Mitzwot  and  like  practices  that  had  become  abuses,  the 
abolition  of  the  second-day  holidays ;  these  reforms  are  now 
accepted  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  show  how  completely 
Judaism  in  America  has  been  occidentalized.  Its  spiritual 

1  There  has  been  a  vast  change  in  the  position  of  woman  in  the 
synagogue,  owing  to  the  influence  of  the  reform  movement.     In  1852, 
at   the   dedication  of  the  Bene  Israel  synagogue  in  Cincinnati,  the 
question  of  permitting  women   to  participate   in  the   choir   aroused 
much   discussion,   the   opposition  holding  that  woman,   according  to 
Jewish  custom,  could  have  no  voice  in  the  public  services;  the  matter 
was  decided  in  the  affirmative  only  after  great  efforts  had  been  put 
forth  by  the  liberal  wing.     Nowhere  was  the  orientalism  of  the  syna- 
gogue  more   pronounced  than   in   the   inferior   position    assigned   to 
woman  in  the  public  religious  life.     It  is  a  far  way  from  that  dis- 
cussion in  1852  to  the  action  of  a  number  of  congregations  admitting 
woman  to  full  membership  with  the  same  privileges  and  prerogatives 
as  the  men.     At  the  convention  of  the  Union  of  American  Congre- 
gations  held   at  Baltimore   in   1891,   the   delegation   of   the   Berith 
Kodesh  congregation  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  counted  a  woman  as  one  of 
its  number.     The  Council  of  Jewish  Women,  organized  in  1893,  with 
its  numerous  branches  throughout  the  country,  offers  striking  testi- 
mony of   the  active  role  that  woman  is  now  playing  in  the  public 
religious  life  of  the  Jews  of  this  country. 

2  This  was  first  done  in  Albany  in  1851;  Reminiscences  by  Isaac 
M.  Wise,  p.  212. 

'See  the  author's  "Confirmation  in  the  Synagogue/'  in  the  Year 
Boole  of  the  Central  Conference  for  1890-91,  pp.  43-58. 


510  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

interpretation  of  the  tenets  of  the  faith  rests  on  the  high- 
est plane  of  ethical  monotheism,  and  is  in  a  line  with  the 
most  exalted  thought  on  the  universal  character  of  Israel's 
faith  and  mission  as  first  proclaimed  by  the  great  prophets 
of  old. 

The  Union  of  American  Congregations  and  the 
Hebrew  Union  College. 

Almost  from  the  moment  of  his  coming  to  this  country 
Dr.  I.  M.  Wise  had  urged  the  formation  of  a  union  of  the 
congregations  of  the  land  and  the  foundation  of  a  theo- 
logical seminary.  As  early  as  1848  he  issued  an  appeal  for 
a  union  among  the  congregations;  in  1854  he  established 
the  Zion  College  Association,  which  opened  Zion  College  in 
Cincinnati;  this,  however,  had  but  a  very  short  life.  For 
many  years  he  continued  to  advocate  these  his  pet  ideas, 
in  season  and  out  of  season.  At  the  rabbinical  Conference 
held  in  Cincinnati  in  1871  the  matter  received  definite  ex- 
pression in  the  following  resolution: 

The  members  of  the  conference  take  upon  themselves  the  duty  to 
bring  prominently  before  the  congregations,  to  advocate  and  to 
support  by  their  influence,  the  following  project  of  co-operation  of 
the  American  Hebrew  Congregations: 

The  congregations  to  unite  themselves  into  a  Hebrew  Congrega- 
tional Union  with  the  object  to  preserve  and  advance  the  union  of 
Israel;  to  take  proper  care  of  the  development  and  promulgation  of 
Judaism;  to  establish  and  support  a  scholastic  institute,  and  the 
library  appertaining  thereto,  for  the  education  of  rabbis,  preachers 
and  teachers  of  religion;  to  provide  cheap  editions  of  the  English 
Bible  and  text  books  for  the  schools  of  religious  instruction;  to  give 
support  to  weak  congregations,  and  to  provide  such  other  institutions 
which  elevate,  preserve,  and  promulgate  Judaism. 

Eesolved,  that  whenever  twenty  congregations,  with  no  less  than 
two  thousand  contributing  male  members,  shall  have  declared,  in 
accordance  with  the  preceding  resolution,  their  resolution  to  enter 
the  H.  C.  U.,  the  said  committee  shall  convoke  the  synod  to  meet  at 
such  time  and  place  as  may  be  most  satisfactory  to  the  co-operating 
congregations. 

For  two  years  after  that  Dr.  Wise  agitated  the  subject 


EEFOEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  511 

almost  every  week  in  his  organ,  The  Israelite.  His  per- 
sistent efforts  were  finally  rewarded.  On  July  8,  1873, 
the  organization  of  the  Union  of  American  Congregations 
was  effected  at  a  meeting  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati  by 
thirty-four  congregations,  numbering  eighteen  hundred 
members.  This  union,  which  now  comprises  166  congre- 
gations, counting  14,769  members, *  meets  in  council  every 
two  years:  each  congregation  is  represented  by  delegates; 
rabbis  and  laymen  meet  for  mutual  discussion  and  inter- 
change of  opinion.  The  union  was  originally  intended  to 
include  congregations  of  all  shades  of  religious  opinion,  and 
therefore  it  was  determined  that  no  questions  of  religious 
belief  or  practice  should  be  discussed  at  its  meetings,  in 
order  to  avoid  dissension.  However,  it  has  now  become 
practically  a  union  of  the  reform  congregations. 

Its  greatest  achievement  has  been  the  establishment  of 
the  Hebrew  Union  College,  which  was  opened  on  October  3, 
1875.  This  is  the  theological  training  school  of  Reform 
Judaism  in  America.  The  first  class,  consisting  of  four, 
was  graduated  in  1883.  The  number  of  rabbis  that  have 
gone  forth  from  its  halls  now  reaches  one  hundred  and 
twenty-two.  All  these  organizations  and  institutions  tes- 
tify to  the  activity  and  energy  of  the  reform  movement  in 
American  Judaism.  The  Union  of  Congregations,  the 
Central  Conference  of  Rabbis,  the  Hebrew  Union  College, 
the  Union  Prayer-Book,  are  notable  achievements.  These 
are  warrant  sufficient  of  the  spirit  that  animates  the  earnest 
workers  in  the  cause  of  Judaism  in  the  land  where  it  has 
had  the  fullest  opportunity  to  grow  and  develop  without 
hindrance  from  government  or  obstacle  from  environment. 
Judaism  has  celebrated  a  rebirth  in  America,  and  Prof. 
Moritz  Lazarus  of  Berlin  was  probably  a  true  prophet  when 
he  wrote  that  the  future  of  the  faith  lies  in  the  United 
States  and  that  the  inspiration  in  coming  days  will  go  forth 
from  there. 

1  Thirty-third  Annual  Eeport  of  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew 
Congregations.  Cincinnati,  O.,  1907. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE 

THE  past  third  of  a  century  has  witnessed  many  inter- 
esting passages-at-arms  between  Jewish  traditionalists  and 
progressionists  in  Europe.  The  unfortunate  dissonance 
between  the  daily  practice  of  the  Jews  and  the  official  teach- 
ing of  the  synagogue  is  constantly  apparent.  What  offi- 
cial Judaism  declares  binding  thousands  of  Jews  in  prac- 
tical life  disregard.  The  two  synods  had  disappointed  the 
expectations  of  their  projectors  that  the  leaders  of  Jewry  in 
convention  assembled  would  succeed  in  finding  ways  and 
means  to  reconcile  these  differences. *  The  forward  spirit 
among  the  people,  however,  despite  the  untiring  efforts  of 
the  orthodox,  could  not  be  stemmed.  A  most  significant 
event  was  the  opening  of  the  Hochschule  fur  die  Wissen- 
schaft  des  Judenthums  in  Berlin  May  6,  1872. 2  The  pur- 
pose of  this  institution  was  the  training  of  rabbis  along 
liberal  lines ;  Abraham  Geiger  among  the  rabbis,  and  Moritz 
Lazarus3  among  the  laymen,  were  its  leading  spirits.  As 

1  On  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  the  convening  of  the  Leipzig 
synod,  Dr.  Heinrich  Meyer  Cohn,  in  an  article  entitled  For  fiinf  und 
zwanzig  Jahren,  claimed  that  the  reason  why  the  synods  had  exerted 
so  little  influence  lay  in  the  fact  that  they  had  concerned  themselves 
only  with  the  reforms  of  a  few  externals,  instead  of  attempting  a 
reinterpretation  of  the  whole  content  of  the  religion;  see  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
LVIII  (1894),  338-40.  There  strictures  were  answered  by  Dr.  A. 
Wiener,  of  Oppeln,  a  participant  in  both  synods.  Ibid.,  559-61, 
570-71. 

*IUd.,  XXXVI  (1872),  314. 

8  Lazarus,  the  foremost  philosophical  thinker  among  German  Jews, 
was  among  the  most  ardent  of  reformers;  he  recognized  fully  the 
sorry  state  of  Judaism  in  Germany,  with  its  contradictions  between 

512 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  513 

'was  to  be  expected,  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  reformers 
was  met  by  a  similar  movement  on  the  part  of  the  orthodox. 
October  21,  1873,  the  orthodox  rabbinical  seminary  was 
founded  by  Israel  Hildesheimer,  the  uncompromising  foe 
of  each  or  any  reform  in  ritual  or  practice.1  The  Hildes- 
heimer brand  of  orthodoxy  is  thoroughly  consistent;  here 
there  is  no  recognition  of  changed  conditions  and  changing 
views.  The  body  of  tradition  is  sacred;  he  who  would 
alter  even  the  least  among  the  numberless  precepts  is  a 
transgressor  in  Israel.  The  Beiiinese  community,  how- 
ever, had  been  committed  for  some  time  to  the  reform  posi- 
tion through  its  official  mouthpiece,  the  main  congrega- 
tion (Hauptgemeinde).  No  reforms  of  a  far-reaching 
character  had  been  introduced,  it  is  true;  but  still  some 
changes  had  been  made  in  the  liturgy,  and  as  soon  as  any 
change,  however  slight,  is  countenanced,  the  principle  of 
religious  progress  is  recognized,  and  the  orthodox  position 
is  surrendered.  Appreciating  this  fact,  orthodox  leaders 
bent  their  energies  towards  securing  legislation  which 
would  permit  their  followers  to  secede  from  the  main 

theory  and  practice.  Time  and  again  he  gave  utterance  to  weighty 
words  calling  attention  to  the  perilous  position  of  the  faith;  never 
did  he  express  this  more  clearly  than  in  an  address  delivered  on  the 
centenary  of  the  death  of  Moses  Mendelssohn,  entitled  "Moses 
Mendelssohn  in  seinem  Verhaltniss  zu  Juden  und  Judenthum. "  His 
words  on  that  occasion  were:  "The  decay  of  a  religion,  as  well  as 
of  every  spiritual  society,  must  ensue  if  a  large,  yea,  a  very  large 
portion  of  its  confessors,  no  longer  observe  hundreds  upon  hundreds 
of  its  injunctions,  no  longer  recognize  their  validity  in  their  hearts, 
but  nevertheless  permit  them  to  stand  as  injunctions  of  the  faith. 
Several  attempts  at  reform  were  made  in  rabbinical  conferences  and 
synods,  but  these  remained  without  successors  for  reasons  with  whose 
discussion  we  are  not  concerned  here.  The  only  final  true  and  real 
reason  why  we  refrain  from  constant  work  at  this  reform  is  laziness. 
...  A  religion  whose  teachers  and  leaders  lack  the  courage  to  pro- 
pose to  themselves  the  question,  What  is  in  fact  our  law,  what  is  it 
still  capable  of  being? — such  a  religion  is  in  the  greatest  danger. 
We  are  letting  it  go. ' '  See  Deutsche  Eevue,  1886,  215-228. 
1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XXXVII  (1873),  738. 
33 


514  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

congregation  and  form  themselves  into  separate  orthodox 
congregations.  The  law  in  Prussia  and  other  German 
states  was  to  the  effect  that  every  Jew  had  to  belong  and 
contribute  to  the  main  Jewish  congregation.  If  a  body 
of  Jews  who  dissented  from  the  standpoint  represented  by 
the  main  congregation,  desired  to  form  themselves  into  a 
society  organized  011  lines  agreeable  to  their  convictions, 
they  could  do  so  as  a  private  enterprise,  but  they  were 
compelled  to  retain  membership  in  the  main  congregation  if 
they  wished  to  be  considered  within  the  pale  of  Judaism. 
The  Berlin  reform  congregation  was  a  case  in  point.  Its 
members  had  to  bear  a  double  burden;  although  repeated 
eff orts  had  been  made  by  this  congregation  to  obtain  official 
standing,  and  thus  free  its  communicants  from  bearing  this 
double  obligation,  these  efforts  had  proved  unavailing. 

In  1873  the  orthodox,  under  the  inspiration  of  Samson 
Raphael  Hirsch,  began  to  agitate  for  the  passing  of  a  law  by 
the  Legislature  known  as  the  Law  of  Withdrawal  (Austritts- 
gesetz).  This  was  intended  to  so  change  the  existing  law 
as  to  permit  a  Jew  to  step  out  of  the  main  congregation 
and  join  an  orthodox  congregation  without  thereby  official- 
ly forfeiting  allegiance  to  Judaism.  The  German  Israel- 
itish  Congregational  Union,  which  had  been  organized  in 
1871,  protested  against  this  proposed  legislation  in  a  peti- 
tion to  the  lawr-making  body  of  the  land,  in  which  it  was 
set  forth  that  such  a  law  would  weaken  the  main  congre- 
gations and  give  many  individuals  the  excuse  not  to  con- 
tribute. Hirsch  had  succeeded  in  enlisting  the  powerful 
co-operation  of  Eduard  Lasker,  possibly  the  leading  mem- 
ber of  the  Reichstag  next  to  Bismarck;  Lasker  consented 
to  father  the  bill,  and  it  was  passed  in  1876.  The  results 
of  this  law  were  far-reaching,  not  so  much  as  it  caused  the 
formation  of  separate  orthodox  congregations  (this  proved 
to  be  the  case  only  in  Berlin,  Frankfort *  and  Wiesbaden ) , 

1  The  course  of  events  in  Frankfort-on-the-Main  following  the 
passing  of  this  law  is  instructive.  Samson  Raphael  Hirsch  had 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  515 

but  because  it  forced  the  congregations  of  the  various  Ger- 
man cities  to  adopt  a  policy  of  accommodation  for  fear  of 
a  diinunition  of  revenue;  care  was  taken  by  the  officers  of 
the  congregations  not  to  permit  the  introduction  of  reforms 
lest  this  might  lead  to  secession  on  the  part  of  many  to 
whom  reform  was  distasteful.  The  Law  of  Withdrawal 
was  the  club  which  the  orthodox  held  over  the  congrega- 
tions to  compel  a  maintenance  of  the  status  quo.  In  large 
communities  it  was  natural  that  there  should  be  many 
shades  of  opinion ;  provision  should  have  been  made  as  far 
as  possible  to  meet  the  religious  requirements  of  the  differ- 
ent elements,  reform  services  with  liturgical  changes,  organ, 
German  sermon,  choir  for  reformers,  and  traditional  serv- 

formed  the  Israelitische  Genossenschaft  in  1866.  He  and  his  con- 
geners, much  as  they  affected  to  be  strictly  orthodox,  were  far 
removed  from  the  traditional  standpoint,  for  they  had  assimilated 
themselves  to  the  culture  of  their  surroundings;  Jews  had  outgrown 
the  religious  standpoint  of  rabbinism  just  as  they  had  passed  beyond 
its  cultural  phase.  To  attempt  a  union  of  the  two  was  artificial, 
unnatural,  and  romantic.  This,  however,  was  the  course  of  Hirsch. 
After  the  Law  of  Withdrawal  was  passed,  the  main  congregation 
of  Frankfort;  in  order  to  prevent  the  orthodox  members  from  seced- 
ing, offered  to  provide  for  all  the  ritual  needs  of  the  orthodox  and  to 
arrange  for  a  service  that  would  meet  their  desires,  i.  e.,  to  construct 
a  synagogue  in  which  the  service  would  be  conducted  altogether 
along  traditional  lines.  Hirsch  declared  that  the  orthodox  who  would 
take  advantage  of  this  offer  and  not  join  his  congregation  was  guilty 
of  treason  to  Judaism.  The  congregation  appealed  to  that  pillar  of 
orthodoxy,  S.  B.  Bamberger,  of  Wiirzburg,  who  decided  for  the  con- 
gregation and  against  Hirsch.  The  latter  now  issued  an  "Open 
Letter  to  District  Rabbi  S.  B.  Bamberger  in  Wiirzburg,"  in  which  he 
accused  Bamberger  of  inconsistency,  inasmuch  as  on  January  21, 
1872,  he  had  said  that  a  Jew  who  did  not  believe  in  a  personal 
Messiah,  the  descendant  of  David,  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish 
people  to  Palestine,  and  the  re-institution  of  the  sacrifices,  is  a 
renegade.  Since  the  Frankfort  congregation  had  repudiated  these 
doctrines,  no  true  orthodox  Jew,  even  according  to  Bamberger,  could 
remain  within  its  fold.  This  called  forth  a  pamphlet,  ' '  Open  Reply 
by  X,"  in  which  the  writer  contends  that  Hirsch,  in  fomenting 
strife  and  inducing  men  to  leave  the  congregation  acts  against  the 


516  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ices  without  these  changes  and  additions  for  the  orthodox. 
But  the  orthodox  party  was  generally  unwilling  to  agree 
even  to  the  principle  "like  opportunities  for  all,"  and  this 
just  policy  was  prevented  from  being  put  into  practice. 
Truth  to  say,  the  anti-Semitic  movement  in  Germany  which 
beginning  in  1875  infected  with  its  virus  as  the  years  passed 
every  phase  of  life,  political,  social,  educational,  industrial, 
so  engrossed  the  energy  and  attention  of  the  Jews  in  com- 
bating it,  that  all  specifically  Jewish  interests,  notably  the 
purely  religious,  suffered.  Thousands  came  to  look  upon 
their  Judaism  as  a  misfortune  because  it  blocked  their 
material  advancement.  Conversions  became  more  and 
more  numerous, 1  indifference  to  the  religion  on  the  part 
of  those  who  did  not  take  this  extreme  step  grew  more  and 
more  pronounceed.  So  desperate  did  the  situation  become 
that  the  rabbis  of  Berlin  deemed  it  necessary  to  convoke  a 
conference  of  the  rabbis  of  Germany  to  deliberate  upon 
ways  and  means  to  meet  the  critical  turn  of  affairs.  The 
conference  took  place  at  Berlin  June  4  and  5,  1884.  The 
discussions  centered  about  three  points:  first,  the  relation 

spirit  of  Talmud  and  Shulchan  Aruk;  Hirsch  himself  would  be 
severely  condemned  by  orthodox  rabbis  of  Hungary,  Galicia,  etc.,  for 
permitting  marriages  to  take  place  in  his  synagogue,  for  delivering 
German  sermons  and  similar  departures  from  traditional  custom. 
Bamberger,  too,  censured  Hirsch  in  an  "Open  Beply"  in  which  he 
defended  his  course.  S.  Suskind,  rabbi  of  Wiesbaden,  also  took  a 
hand  in  this  controversy.  He  subjected  to  a  critical  review  the 
statutes  of  Hirsch 's  congregation,  notably  the  clause  that  declared 
the  Talmud  and  Shulchan  Aruk  the  fundamental  law  of  the  con- 
gregation. See  Die  Statuten  der  israelitischen  Eeligionsgenossen- 
schaft  zu  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  Beleuchtet  von  S.  Suskind,  Babbiner  zu 
Wiesbaden.  Wiesbaden,  1876.  This  attack  called  forth  several 
answers,  notably  Die  Angriffe  des  Herrn  Eabbiner  Suskind  zu  Wies- 
baden gegen  die  Statuten  der  israelitischen  Eeligionsgenossenschaft 
zu  Frankfurt  a.  M.,  Beleuchtet  von  S.  Frankfurt  am  Main,  1876; 
and  Heimleuchtung  des  Herrn  Eabbiner  Suskind  von  einen  Paganus- 
Prankfurt  a.  M.,  1876. 

1 N.    Samter,   Judentaufen   im   19   Jahrhunderts,    145    ff .     Berlin, 
1906. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  517 

of  Judaism  to  other  faiths ;  secondly,  the  means  to  quicken 
the  religious  spirit  of  the  people  and  to  further  the  cause 
of  religious  education;  and  thirdly,  the  formation  of  a 
Union  of  the  Rabbis  of  Germany.  The  pronouncement  of 
the  relation  of  Judaism  to  followers  of  other  faiths  was 
called  forth  by  the  accusations  of  the  anti-Semites  and  was 
intended  to  be  the  official  reply  of  Jewish  leaders  to  agitat- 
ors of  the  Stocker  type.  This  declaration  aroused  so  much 
attention  at  the  time  it  was  made  and  has  in  itself  so  much 
intrinsic  value,  that  it  will  be  given  a  place  here  although 
its  subject  matter  does  not  come  directly  within  the  compass 
of  this  study.  Said  these  rabbis  in  conference  assembled: 
11  In  the  name  and  under  the  protection  of  the  one  and  only 
God,  the  conference  of  German  rabbis  makes  the  following 
declaration  over  against  the  defamations  which  hatred  and 
prejudice  have  heaped  upon  the  moral  teachings  of  Juda- 
ism of  late  years.  The  command  to  love  the  neighbor, 
which  is  enjoined  in  the  third  Book  of  Moses,  chapter  19, 
verse  18,  in  the  words  'Thou  shall  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself,  I  am  the  Lord,'  and  which  is  designated  by  Hillel, 
the  great  master,  as  being  the  essence  of  the  whole  Jewish 
doctrine,  has  reference  not  alone  to  the  members  of  the 
Jewish  race  or  faith,  but  is  an  unlimited  statute  including 
all  men,  as  is  also  the  command  inculcating  righteousness 
in  the  same  book,  chapter  24,  verse  22 :  'Ye  shall  have  one 
manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the  stranger  as  for  the  home- 
born;  for  I  am  the  Lord  your  God.'  Every  man  who 
demonstrates  his  humanity  by  doing  justly,  loving  mercy 
and  walking  humbly  before  God,  is  considered  truly  pious 
in  the  eyes  of  Judaism,  even  though  he  be  born  in  another 
religious  faith,  and  will  participate  in  future  salvation  as 
is  taught  in  the  Talmudical  expression  which  has  become 
engraved  in  the  Jewish  consciousness  '  The  pious  of  all  peo- 
ples have  a  share  in  the  bliss  of  the  future  life.'  These 
teachings  are  the  fundamental  tenets  denning  the  position 
of  Judaism  towards  the  followers  of  other  faiths.  If,  how- 


518  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ever,  in  the  Jewish  literature  which  has  grown  up  during 
thousands  of  years  there  occur  sentences  here  and  there 
which  do  not  correspond  with  these  fundamental  principles, 
such  sentences  are  to  be  considered  the  opinions  of  individ- 
uals, or  else  they  were  called  forth  by  the  oppression  of  the 
age  and  have  no  binding  force. ' ' 1 

This  conference  was  not  a  reform  conference ;  in  fact,  in 
the  call  which  was  issued  convening  it,  it  was  stated  that 
''every  religious  difference  of  opinion  will  be  excluded 
from  the  discussions."  When  the  consideration  of  the 
vital  matter  of  how  to  quicken  the  religious  spirit  was  on 
the  carpet,  no  suggestions  were  made  similar  to  those  offered 
in  the  conferences  of  the  fifth  decade.  The  means  to  ac- 
complish this  end  were  declared  to  be  the  spreading  among 
the  people  of  a  knowledge  of  Jewish  teachings  and  Jewish 
achievements,  and  the  devotion  of  particular  attention  to 
the  education  of  the  young.  True,  most  of  the  rabbis  here 
assembled,  were  far  removed  from  the  orthodox  type  of  the 
old  school;  they  are  men  of  modern  culture,  but  for  the 
most  part  have  no  sympathy  with  religious  reform;  they 
are  conservative  in  practice,  however  radical  they  may  be 
in  thought.  This  is  the  tragedy  of  the  religious  situation 
among  the  Jews  of  Germany;  the  religious  leaders  occupy 
an  outgrown  standpoint;  the  people  look  upon  Judaism 
simply  as  a  heritage  from  the  past  with  no  modern  message 
for  them.  The  inconsistency  of  officers  of  congregations 
who  insist  upon  a  religious  policy  in  the  congregations  with 
which  their  whole  life  is  at  variance2  has  been  bitingly  but 
truthfully  defined  by  the  term  "ham-eating  orthodoxy" 

1  Verhandlungen  und  Beschlusse  der  Bdbbinerversammlung  zu 
Berlin  am  4  und  5  June,  1884,  17-18.  Berlin,  1885. 

aln  1876  Ludwig  Philippson  described  this  condition  as  "the 
peculiar  phenomenon  that  men  who  long  ago  have  rejected  all  Jewish 
commands  in  their  own  lives,  enter  the  lists  for  every  Piut  and  Nigun, 
and  rave  frantically  against  the  least  reform  in  the  service. "  A.  Z. 
d.  J.,  XL  (1876),  379. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  519 

(Schinkenorthodoxie).1  A  leading  thinker  has  said,  in 
describing  the  situation,  "A  deep  cleft  yawns  between  the 
religious  views  of  the  majority  of  German  Jews  and  those 
views  which  receive  expression  in  Jewish  schools,  from 
many  pulpits  and  in  most  Jewish  newspapers  and  maga- 
zines!"2 

This  intolerable  state  of  affairs,  which  became  more  and 
more  noticeable  in  the  closing  decades  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  led  to  the  formation  in  Berlin  in  1895  of  the 
"Liberal  Society  for  the  Affairs  of  the  Jewish  Community" 
(Liberaler  Vcrein  fur  die  Angelegenheiten  der  judischen 
Gemcinde),  whose  purpose  was  stated  to  be  "to  further 
religious  development  within  the  Jewish  community  of 
Berlin  and  to  strive  to  have  the  administration  conducted 
along  liberal  lines."  The  immediate  cause  of  the  forma- 
tion of  this  society  lay  in  the  fact  that  the  representatives 
of  the  community  administered  the  congregational  affairs 
without  any  regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  liberals  and  with- 
out any  attempt  to  harmonize  the  public  expression  of 
Judaism  with  the  life  its  professors  were  leading.  In  the 
first  address  which  this  society  issued  in  April,  1895,  to  the 
Jews  of  Berlin,  attention  was  called  to  the  attacks  upon 
Jews  and  Judaism  from  without.  These,  however,  would 
pass  and  do  little  permanent  harm  were  it  not  for  the  in- 
ternal ills,  viz.,  apostasy,  indifference,  and  the  seeking  for 
salvation  in  the  return  to  inflexible  forms  or  the  acceptance 
of  the  nationalistic  interpretation  of  Judaism.  "History 

1  Die  Berliner  Neu-orthodoxie  die  mit  dem  Schinkenstullen  in  der 
Hand  fur  den  Shulchan  Aruk  schwarmen,  ibid.,  LXII  (1898),  532. 

'Gustav  Karpeles  in  review  of  I.  H.  Ritter's  posthumous  book, 
Die  jiidische  Reformgemeinde  zu  Berlin,  ibid.,  LXVI  (1902),  288; 
compare  a  similar  description  of  conditions  in  Prague,  which  applies 
to  all  the  larger  communities  in  Germany,  Austria,  France,  England, 
and  Italy — "the  congregation  passes  as  conservative;  the  banner 
must  cover  everything,  the  institutions  must  remain  unchanged  even 
though  the  form  is  emptied  of  all  significance."  Ibid.,  LIX  (1895), 
209. 


520  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

is  repeating  itself.  As  has  always  been  the  case  in  times 
of  oppression  from  without,  so  in  these  anti-Semitic  days, 
apostasy  and  fanaticism  are  making  their  appearance. 
But  history  also  teaches  the  remedy  against  this  double- 
headed  evil,  viz.,  the  strengthening  of  the  religious  senti- 
ment by  new  inner  incentives  through  which  the  outer 
forms  also  receive  new  significance.  The  cultural  develop- 
ment in  German  Jewry  prompted  by  Mendelssohn,  the  re- 
ligious development  furthered  by  Geiger,  may  now  less  than 
ever  be  permitted  to  come  to  a  standstill."  The  signers  of 
the  address  declared  they  desired,  not  violent  change,  but 
peaceful  development;  that  they  stood  on  the  historical 
ground  of  their  faith.  What  they  aimed  for  was  a  develop- 
ment of  the  forms,  so  that  they  be  no  meaningless  observ- 
ances, but  continue  as  the  real  outer  expressions  of  the 
inner  belief.  "Berlin  has  always  been  the  center  of  the 
spiritual  struggle  of  German  Jewry.  Let  us  not  prove 
ourselves  unworthy  of  our  fathers." 

The  formation  of  a  liberal  society  was  declared  to  be  a 
pressing  need  just  at  this  time  because  the  election  of 
representatives  would  take  place  in  the  following  autumn. 
The  program  of  the  society  was  thus  set  forth.  "We  un- 
furl the  banner  of  religious  progress  in  Judaism.  Liberals 
not  only  in  name,  but  also  in  conviction,  we  will  never 
coerce  consciences.  We  gladly  concede  to  our  co-religion- 
ists who  hold  different  views  from  ours  the  right  to  demand 
the  continuation  of  institutions  that  express  their  point  of 
view,  but  the  watchword  of  equal  rights  may  not,  as  has 
been  the  case  of  late,  be  so  interpreted  as  to  signify  the  ful- 
fillment of  every  demand  of  the  orthodox  or  seemingly 
orthodox  minority.  Equal  rights  also  for  us,  the  great 
liberal  majority  of  the  community!  The  community  is 
still  without  a  house  of  worship  in  which  the  service  is  con- 
ducted for  the  greater  part  in  the  vernacular,  in  which  all, 
especially  our  wives  and  children,  can  participate  with  full 
comprehension  and  therefore  with  proper  edification. *. 

1  This  statement  was  not  exact  as  such  a  service  is  conducted  in 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  521 

What  our  forefathers  found  to  be  necessary  already 
thousands  of  years  ago,  the  service  in  the  vernacular,  can- 
not be  a  mischievous  innovation  to-day.  Our  solution  in 
all  questions  of  the  public  worship  is  this:  as  we  wish  to 
exercise  no  coercion  of  conscience,  so  will  we  not  tolerate 
any. ' ' 

They  also  pleaded  for  such  a  religious  education  of  the 
children  as  would  acquaint  them  with  the  essentials  of 
Judaism ;  but  they  desired  the  children  to  be  animated  by 
the  same  spirit  that  animated  them,  viz.,  love  for  their  faith 
combined  with  love  for  their  fatherland,  so  that  the  chil- 
dren should  be  German  not  only  in  language  and  educa- 
tion, but  also  in  sentiment.  The  motto  of  the  society,  then, 
was  * '  Equal  rights  for  all. ' '  They  would  have  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  community  provide  for  the  various  tend- 
encies of  thought  among  Jews  by  synagogues  correspond- 
ing in  the  mode  of  worship  to  these  various  tendencies, 
reform  synagogues  for  reformers,  conservative  for  conserva- 
tives, orthodox  for  the  orthodox. 

In  the  autumn  of  1895  the  Society  issued  another  address 
urging  the  election  of  the  liberal  candidates  for  the  repre- 
sentative assembly;  in  this  address  the  campaign  cry  was 
again  raised  for  the  vernacular  in  the  service;  that  system 
of  religious  education  was  also  denounced  which  set  forth 
the  chief  content  of  Judaism  as  consisting  of  such  cere- 
monies as  the  children  see  their  parents  disregard  and  by 
which  course  of  instruction  school  and  home  are  brought 
into  conflict.  ''Apostasy  and  indifference  will  spread  if 
there  is  no  other  choice  but  that  between  forced  observ- 
ance of  orthodox  demands  and  complete  non-observance. 
This  sad  result  can  be  avoided  if  provision  is  made  for  the 
satisfaction  of  the  liberal  religious  sentiment." 

In  the  election  which  took  place  at  the  end  of  November, 

the  Berlin  reform  temple.  The  meaning  was,  of  course,  that  none 
of  the  synagogues  of  the  main  congregation  (Hauptgemeinde), 
of  which  there  are  five,  met  the  needs  here  expressed. 


522  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  liberal  candidates  were  defeated  by  a  small  majority ; 
the  religions  indifference  of  the  Berlin  Jewish  community 
appears  from  the  fact  that  of  16,235  electors  privileged  to 
cast  their  ballots  for  these  officers  only  4,620  voted. 

It  was  during  the  incumbency  of  the  representatives 
chosen  at  this  election  that  the  question  of  a  service  on  Sun- 
day became  a  burning  issue.  In  August,  1897,  Gustav 
Levinstein  issued  a  pamphlet  entitled  ''The  Demand  for 
Sunday  Service,"  advocating  a  service  on  the  civil  day  of 
rest  supplementary  to  the  service  on  Saturday.  True,  the 
reform  congregation  had  conducted  services  on  that  day  for 
fifty  years,  but  Levinstein  advocated  its  general  introduc- 
tion in  Jewish  congregations  as  the  only  measure  competent 
to  solve  the  glaring  inconsistency  between  the  theoretical 
and  the  practical  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  This  pam- 
phlet called  forth  a  number  of  replies. *  The  matter,  how- 
ever, did  not  end  as  a  purely  academic  discussion,  but  active 
steps  were  taken  to  give  the  suggestion  practical  effect.  On 
February  20,  1898,  a  petition  signed  by  5,800  names  was 
submitted  to  the  representatives  asking  for  a  supplementary 
service  on  Sunday.  The  debate  called  forth  by  this  peti- 
tion was  heated;  naturally,  the  petition  aroused  the  bitter 
opposition  of  the  conservative  members;  some  remarkable 
expressions  were  used  in  the  course  of  the  debate  which 
reveal  the  peculiar  state  of  mind  of  many  so-called  ortho- 
dox Jews  who  are  anything  but  orthodox  in  practice,  and 
throw  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  Jewish  religious  situation 
in  Germany  where  the  rankest  hyprocrisy  prevails,  the 
Judaism  of  the  synagogue  having  no  connection  with  the 
Judaism  of  daily  life.  Said  one  of  the  orthodox  represent- 

1  Julius  Plotke  Sabbathfeier  am  Sonntag  (in  opposition)  A.  Z.  d. 
J.,  1897,  148-9;  Levinstein  replied  to  this,  ibid.,  184-6.  Benas  Levy 
suggested  the  holding  of  a  trial  service  on  Sunday  in  one  Berlinese 
synagogue  to  determine  whether  this  was  really  desired.  Ibid.,  186; 
Emil  Breslauer  opposed  Sunday  service  in  his  article  Sonntag gottes- 
dienst.  Ibid.,  452. 


BECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  523 

atives  unreservedly,  "One  can  think  orthodox  and  feel 
orthodox  without  having  to  practice  orthodoxy."1 

The  petition  was  rejected  by  the  decisive  vote  of  nine- 
teen to  two.  A  resolution  to  hold  late  Friday  evening  serv- 
ices with  sermon  during  the  months  between  the  Feasts  of 
Tabernacles  and  Passover  was  adopted.  The  Berlin  rab- 
binate had  submitted  to  the  meeting  an  opinion  unfavor- 
able to  the  holding  of  services  on  Sunday.  In  reply  to  a 
request  of  the  representatives  for  an  opinion  on  Friday 
evening  services,  two  members  of  the  rabbinate,  Maybaum 
and  Rosenzweig,  answered  dissentingly,  giving  as  their  rea- 
son the  fear  that  such  a  service  would  detract  from  the 
attendance  on  Sabbath  morning;  they  stated,  further,  that 
this  would  necessitate  two  services  on  Friday  evening,  one 
at  the  entrance  of  the  Sabbath  in  accordance  with  the  pre- 
scribed command  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk,  and  the  other  at 
the  hour  fixed  by  the  representatives.  The  other  two  rab- 
bis, Stier  and  Weisse,  expressed  their  willingness  to  carry 
out  the  resolution  of  the  representatives.  This  resolution 
was  then  reaffirmed  at  a  meeting  in  March,  1898. 

Levinstein  now  issued  another  pamphlet  in  which  he 
ci'iticized  sharply  the  response  of  the  rabbinate  on  the  sub- 
ject and  the  action  of  the  representatives.  A  result  of  this 
agitation  appeared  in  the  election  for  representatives  in 
November,  1898,  when,  in  addition  to  the  regular  tickets  of 
the  conservative  and  liberal  parties,  a  third  ticket  was 
placed  in  the  field  under  the  auspices  of  a  committee  for 
the  introduction  of  a  service  with  sermon  on  Sunday,  in 
addition  to  the  regular  Sabbath  service.  The  liberals 
elected  a  majority  of  the  representatives.2  At  the  meet- 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXII  (1898),  86. 

2  Previous  to  this  election  two  additional  articles  appeared  in  the 
columns  of  the  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXII  (1898),  531  and  541,  entitled 
Unsere  Orthodoxie,  that  set  forth  vividly  religious  conditions  among 
the  Je\vs  of  the  German  capital.  In  these  articles  the  editor,  Gustav 
Karpeles,  strongly  arraigned  the  orthodox,  who,  while  aiming  to 
keep  the  congregation  officially  " pious"  (fromm),  themselves  dis- 


524  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ing  of  the  representatives  held  on  February  18,  1900, 
Levinstein  presented  a  petition  for  the  introduction  of  a 
service  on  Sunday.  This  petition  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  five,  who  at  a  subsequent  meeting  reported  recom- 
mending that  religious  addresses  be  delivered  on  Sunday 
at  an  hour  when  business  was  suspended.  This  was  de- 
feated, as  well  as  two  other  propositions,  one  of  which  was 
that  a  week-day  service  with  sermon  be  held  on  Sunday  in 
one  of  the  communal  synagogues  at  a  business-free  hour, 
and  the  other  that  a  religious  discourse  without  a  service, 
but  with  an  opening  and  closing  song,  be  delivered  at  such 
an  hour. 

This  question  of  a  service  on  Sunday  was  made  the  issue 
at  the  election  for  representatives  in  November,  1901. 1 
The  conservatives  worked  the  community  up  to  a  great 
pitch  of  excitement  on  the  subject,  and  succeeded  in  carry- 
ing the  election. 

regard  every  law  of  the  Shulchan  Aruk  in  their  private  lives.  He 
pleads  for  the  election  of  liberal  representatives  who  will  make 
provision  also  for  the  thousands  of  Berlinese  Jews  who  desire  more 
German  in  the  service  and  a  supplemental  service  on  Sunday.  Only 
thus  can  the  indifference  be  overcome  and  the  conversions  to  Chris- 
tianity be  stayed.  "To  be  a  Jew  means  to  favor  progress  without 
disregarding  the  old.  The  inner  life-force  of  Judaism  has  always 
consisted  in  building  further  on  existing  foundations.  We  do  not 
wish  to  be  Shulchan  Aruk  mummies.  Let  every  Jew  be  pious 
according  to  his  own  interpretation;  but  no  one  can  presume  to  pose 
as  dictator  over  the  consciences  of  others.  In  the  congregation  of 
Berlin  -there  must  be  room  for  every  tendency  in  Judaism,  but  never 
for  zealotry  and  heresy-hunting." 

*At  this  time,  too,  Levinstein  appeared  in  the  arena  with  another 
pamphlet  urging  the  election  of  representatives  who  would  introduce 
a  service  on  Sunday.  See  his  Die  Eeprdsentanten  Wahlen,  Forderung 
des  Sonntaggottesdienstes,  Berlin,  1901.  This  was  answered  in  a 
pamphlet  issued  by  the  Union  of  Synagogue  societies  of  Berlin  and 
its  suburbs,  Erwiederung  an  Herrn  Gustav  Levinstein  auf  seine 
neueste  Schrift  die  Eeprdsentanten  Wahlen,  etc;  see  also  the  pamph- 
let Der  Liberalismus  macht  selig  und  der  Sonntaggottesdienst  mach 
liberal,  Ein  Wort  zur  Verstdndigung  an  Herrn  Gustav  Levinstein  von 
Dr.  Heinrich  Loewe.  Berlin,  1901. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  525 

The  affairs  of  the  community  during  the  next  three 
years  were  administered  in  an  altogether  reactionary 
spirit.  During  these  years  steps  were  taken  to  build  a  new 
synagogue.  The  representatives  purposed  to  dispense 
with  an  organ  in  this  building.1  This  called  forth  an 
article  in  publication  No.  172  of  the  Liberal  Society  in 
December,  1903  entitled  "Liberalism  in  Berlin."  A 
warning  note  was  sounded  that  the  Jews  of  Berlin  should 
see  to  it  lest  the  metropolis  of  intelligence,  progress,  and 
culture  in  religious  concerns,  became  the  leader  of  the  re- 
action. The  reactionary  policy  of  the  representatives  did, 
in  fact,  arouse  the  community.  In  October,  1904,  the 
liberal  society  issued  an  electoral  address  to  the  Jewish 
voters  in  which  they  showed  how  during  the  past  three 
years  the  needs  and  demands  of  the  liberal  element  had 
been  altogether  disregarded;  despite  the  fact  that  every 
synagogue  which  had  been  erected  in  Berlin  during  a 
period  of  forty  years  was  equipped  with  an  organ,  the  one 
that  had  been  dedicated  in  1904  was  without  this  instru- 
ment ;  it  was  also  intended  to  revise  the  Prayer-Book  in  use 
by  the  community  and  include  all  the  old  prayers  that  had 
been  removed;  the  children's  Sabbath  afternoon3  service 

1  This,  too,  despite  the  fact  that  four  of  the  six  rabbis  of  the  com- 
munity had  submitted  opinions  in  favor  of  the  organ,  viz.,  Maybaum, 
Eosenzweig,  Stier  and  Blumenthal;  of  the  two  others,  one,  Weisse, 
opposed  the  organ  on  the  ground  of  policy,  the  other,  Eschelbacher, 
for  religious  reasons.  • 

2  This    society    issued    publications    from    time    to    time    entitled 
MittTieilungen  des  Liberalen  Vereins,  etc. 

3  In  1888  a  children's  Sabbath  afternoon  service  was  instituted  in 
Berlin  in  a  number  of  synagogues.     This  service  followed  the  general 
lines   of    the    mincha    (afternoon)    service    except   that    the   prayers 
pis  IDpIS,   in^flf)   'JK1  and  ]}i^  K3l  were    omitted    and    that   only 
the  second  section  of  the  ijity    prayer  was  used  and  this  in  German 
to  the  words  mm  1t3N31  which  closing  words  were  read  in  Hebrew; 
a  German  sermon  was  preached;  the  service  lasted  forty-five  or  fifty 
minutes.     In  1900  Dr.  Eschelbacher,  who  is  of  a  decidedly  conserva- 
tive bent,  was  elected  one  of  the  rabbis  of  the  community;  he  refused 


526  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

had  been  so  changed  as  to  be  conducted  altogether  on 
orthodox  lines ;  the  object  of  the  conservatives  was  to  stifle 
every  liberal  aspiration.  At  the  election  the  liberals 
succeeded  in  returning  all  their  candidates.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  great  majority  of  the  Jews  of  the 
German  capital  sympathize  with  the  forward  movement  in 
Judaism,  but  reform  there  has  been  a  matter  of  shreds  and 
patches ;  the  synagogue,  despite  the  organ  and  the  German 
sermon,  still  breathes  of  Orientalism,  as  does  also  the 
official  interpretation  of  Judaism,  while  the  people  in 
thought  and  in  life  are  thoroughly  occidentalized ;  until 
this  dissonance  shall  be  removed  Judaism  cannot  .be  the 
great  influence  in  the  lives  of  its  followers  that  its  essential 
and  fundamental  teachings  demand  that  it  should  and 
must  be. 1 

The  Cologne  congregation  has  also  recently  been  the 
scene  of  conflict  between  the  parties  of  tradition  and  prog- 
ress. The  synagogue  of  the  community  had  been  built  and 
donated  by  Abraham  von  Oppenheimer  with  the  condition 

to  participate  in  or  to  preach  at  this  children's  service  because 
of  the  departure  from  the  traditional  ritual  by  the  omission  of  the 
above-mentioned  portions.  The  conservative  majority  of  the  repre- 
sentatives at  the  meeting  of  March  23,  1902,  resolved  to  abolish  the 
changes  that  had  been  made  and  to  have  the  traditional  mincha 
service  entirely  in  Hebrew.  Ludwig  Geiger  protested  strongly,  but 
to  no  avail.  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXVI  (1902),  148-50. 

1  After  the  death  of  Moritz  Lazarus,  in  1903,  a  number  of  his 
aphorisms  on  Judaism  were  published;  several  of  these  reflect  the 
present  German  Jewish  situation  so  clearly  that  one  or  two  may  well 
be  quoted  here.  1 1  The  retention  of  the  old  because  it  is  old — the 
denial  of  progress  in  development,  the  assertion  that  everything  has 
been  known,  and  better  known  at  that,  may  signify  a  virtue  of 
modesty  for  the  individual;  for  the  community  it  is  a  lie."  "From 
now  on  we  should  confess  only  that  which  we  consider  true  to-day 
in  accordance  writh  our  religious  knowledge  and  consciousness,  that 
which  we  recognize  as  agreeing  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism — hence 
we  should  draw  our  conclusions  for  the  salvation  and  preservation  of 
our  co-religionists,  not  from  a  written  codex,  but  from  the  knowledge 
of  the  entire  content  of  Judaism  and  from  a  firm  inner  conviction. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  527 

that  an  organ  was  never  to  be  placed  in  it,  and  the  service 
would  be  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  traditional 
ritual.  The  congregation  grew  gradually  to  such  propor- 
tions that  it  was  found  necessary  to  build  a  larger  syna- 
gogue. As  this  synagogue  was  nearing  completion,  a  num- 
ber of  liberals  sent  letters  to  all  the  members  of  the  congre- 
gation towards  the  close  of  1898  requesting  an  opinion  as 
to  whether  an  organ  was  desired  in  the  new  synagogue; 
1,640  answers  were  received,  whereof  1,301  were  in  the 
affirmative,  282  in  the  negative,  and  57  doubtful.  The 
movers  in  the  matter  now  addressed  a  communication  to 
the  representatives  of  the  congregation  setting  forth  these 
facts  and  asking  that  provision  be  made  for  the  liberals  as 
well  as  the  orthodox ;  they  suggested  that  such  as  favored 
the  traditional  ritual  attend  service  in  the  old  synagogue, 
while  provision  for  those  who  desired  the  organ  and  German 
prayers  should  be  made  in  the  new  synagogue,  notably  as 
so  overwhelming  a  majority  had  declared  for  these  things. 
It  was  necessary  to  have  a  service  that  should  appeal  to  the 
rising  generation,  and  that  would  stem  the  indifference. 
Agitation  of  the  matter  disturbed  the  community  for  sev- 
eral years. l  Official  action  was  taken  by  the  representa- 
tives in  November,  1901.  One  of  the  rabbis,  Dr.  Rosen- 

What  we  wish  is  full,  complete,  inner  and  outer  honesty,  conscientious 
investigation  in  every  field;  hence,  also,  in  reference  to  tradition. 
What  we  cannot  believe  we  should  not  believe. "  "  Courage !  cour- 
age! True,  this  thought  of  the  necessary  triumph  of  the  idea  over 
the  form,  over  empty,  void  tradition,  over  obstinate  meaningless 
literalism,  will  require  centuries  to  be  realized,  but  the  time  must 
come  or  Judaism  will  perish  from  the  earth. ' ' 

1  The  liberal  wing  organized  a  society  similar  to  the  Berlin  liberal 
organization,  entitled  ' '  The  Liberal  Society  for  the  affairs  of  the 
Jewish  Congregation."  The  avowed  purpose  of  this  society  was  to 
secure  rights  for  all,  liberals  as  well  as  orthodox.  Their  especial 
activity  was  directed  towards  the  election  of  liberal  candidates  to  the 
body  of  representatives  who  would  direct  the  placing  of  the  organ 
in  the  new  synagogue  and  providing  a  service  agreeable  to  the  pro- 
gressive element. 


528  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

thai,  submitted  an  opinion  in  which  he  declared  the  intro- 
duction of  the  organ  in  a  Jewish  house  of  worship  to 
be  stringently  forbidden  by  the  teachings,  laws  and  pre- 
scribed rules  of  the  Jewish  religion;  he  also  declared  that 
he  could  not  officiate  in  an  organ  synagogue,  not  even  if  the 
organ  were  silent. 

On  the  other  hand,  his  colleague,  Dr.  Frank,  stated  that 
there  was  nothing  in  Judaism  which  discountenanced  the 
introduction  of  the  organ.  He  predicted  that  within  thirty 
years  no  rabbi  would  be  found  who  would  declare  against 
it,  that  the  whole  question  was  not  one  of  religious  prin- 
ciple, but  of  opportunism.  He  refrained,  however,  from 
giving  a  decision,  because  the  final  authority  lay  with  the 
congregation  and  not  with  the  rabbi.  When  asked  whether 
he  would  officiate  in  an  organ  synagogue  he  refused  to 
answer.  The  proposition  to  introduce  the  organ  was  de- 
feated by  a  coalition  of  Zionists,  theoretical  orthodox,  and 
romanticists.  A  majority  of  the  representatives,  as  was 
also  the  case  with  the  members  of  the  congregation  at  large, 
were  liberal,  but  they  could  not  muster  a  two-thirds  vote, 
the  number  necessary  to  make  changes  in  the  ritual. 

In  March,  1904,  the  question  again  came  before  the 
directory  and  the  representatives.  In  the  meantime  the 
liberals  had  succeeded  in  increasing  their  representation  in 
both  these  bodies.  The  resolution  to  introduce  the  organ 
in  the  new  synagogue  was  carried  by  a  sufficient  number. 
The  minority  members  now  entered  a  protest  on  the  ground 
that  this  resolution  violated  a  fundamental  religious  law  as 
given  in  Leviticus  xviii.  3,  and  Shulchan  Aru~k,  Jore  Dea 
278,  viz.,  the  prohibition  to  imitate  the  customs  of  the  Gen- 
tiles (Chuqqath  Hagoyim).  It  was  determined  to  appoint 
three  rabbis  as  judges,  one  to  be  named  by  the  directory, 
one  by  the  representatives,  and  one  by  the  protestors.  * 
Drs.  Maybaum  of  Berlin  and  Samuel  of  Essen  were  named 
by  the  official  bodies,  and  Dr.  Cohn  of  Fulda  by  the  pro- 

1  A.  Z.  d,  J.,  Supplement  to  Mar.  25,  1904,  p.  3. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  529 

testing  orthodox.  The  two  former,  in  favoring  the  organ 
and  thus  deciding  the  question  against  the  orthodox  wing, 
gave  utterance  in  their  vote  to  a  broad  principle  of  relig- 
ious development  which  evidences  that  reform  still  has  its 
powerful  spokesmen  in  Germany.  "For  him  who  is  con- 
vinced that  the  law  of  development  controls  the  life  of 
religion  as  of  everything  else  on  this  earth,"  wrote  these 
rabbis,  "there  can  be  no  question,  that  every  generation 
has  the  right  to  give  appropriate  expression  to  its  religious 
thought  and  feeling  in  public  worship.  Whoever  shares 
this  point  of  view  with  us,  will  not  ask  in  reference  to  any 
attempted  reform,  whether  it  can  find  its  complete  analogy 
in  the  past,  but  he  will  only  ask  if  it  is  a  child  of  the  spirit 
which  has  permeated  the  religious  reforms  of  the  past."1 
The  organ  was  played  for  the  first  time  in  the  new  synagogue 
at  the  Passover  service  in  the  year  1906. 2 

The  reform  movement  in  Germany  had  its  beginning  in 
Westphalia  through  the  activity  of  Israel  Jacobson. 
Throughout  the  nineteenth  century  the  congregations  of 
Westphalia  had  taken  no  especially  further  noticeable  part 
in  the  cause  of  religious  progress.  Towards  the  end  of  the 
century,  however,  the  spirit  again  awoke  in  this  Rhenish 
province,  when,  in  1892,  the  Union  of  Jewish  congregations 
of  Westphalia  resolved  to  revise  the  traditional  Prayer- 
Book  on  the  basis  of  the  five  following  rules  of  procedure : 
the  elimination  of  those  prayers  which  are  no  longer 
prayed  to-day ;  the  excision  of  those  portions  wherein  men- 
tion is  made  of  sacrifices  and  sacrificial  service;  the  re- 
moval of  passages  speaking  of  the  return  to  Jerusalem ;  the 
avoidance  of  the  many  repetitions  and  reiterations,  notably 
when  the  content  of  one  prayer  is  repeated  in  the  next  fol- 
lowing; the  removal  of  all  expressions  not  in  consonance 
with  the  outlook  of  our  time  (by  which  is  to  be  understood 

1A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXIX  (1905),  508. 

2  As  a  protest  against  the  introduction  of  the  organ,  the  orthodox 
element  has  organized  a  separate  congregation  called  Ados  Jeshurun. 
34 


530  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

also  the  limitation  of  the  mystical  element  as  far  as  this 
is  possible).  The  whole  Prayer-Book  was  to  be  translated 
into  German.  The  task  was  entrusted  to  Dr.  H.  Vogel- 
stein,  one  of  the  foremost  rabbis  of  Germany.  *  This 
Prayer-Book  was  issued  in  1894.  In  accordance  with  the 
provisions  just  mentioned,  all  prayers  of  a  national  tend- 
ency were  so  changed  as  to  define  Israel's  mission  to  be 
IDS?  m  im?  the  spread  of  the  truth  of  monotheism;  the 
sacrificial  prayers,  the  petition  for  the  return  to  Palestine, 
and  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  state  were  all  recast  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  comport  with  the  feeling  and  thought 
of  the  JewT  for  whom  the  mission  of  Judaism  is  religious  and 
not  political.  The  prayer  which  had  been  so  often  mis- 
represented by  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  as  being  a  petition 
for  the  punishment  of  non-Jews  was  so  changed  as  to  read 
IWHrfoft,  the  practice  being  put  in  place  of  the  person 
so  as  to  make  misinterpretation  impossible.  In  his  preface 
the  author  stated:  "We  desire  to  be  truthful  in  all  our 
speech,  and  notably  when  we  direct  our  words  in  prayer  to 
the  God  of  truth."  In  the  service  for  the  anniversary  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (Tisha  b'ab),  after  indulging 
in  reminiscences  of  what  Zion  and  Jerusalem  were,  the 
prayer  continues:  "We  bear  now  another,  a  higher  ideal, 
in  our  hearts— the  triumph  of  the  sublime  teachings  of 
reverence  for  God  and  pure  humanity  which  were  pro- 
claimed on  Zion  by  prophets,  psalmists,  and  teachers." 

The  book  was  bitterly  attacked  by  the  orthodox  leaders 
and  press.  In  a  reply  to  the  criticisms  the  author  called 
upon  his  liberal  co-religionists  not  to  be  misled  nor  dis- 
couraged ;  he  bade  them  think  of  their  children  and  remove 
from  their  path  every  obstacle  which  would  interfere  with 
their  proper  conception  of  the  high  mission  of  Judaism. 
He  disclaimed  any  intention  of  forcing  the  Prayer-Book 
upon  any  who  believed  that  the  retention  of  the  old  prayers 
for  the  restoration  of  the  sacrifices  and  similar  petitions 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.t  LVII  (1893),  361. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  531 

conduced  to  the  enhancement  of  the  religious  spirit.  Let 
such  who  sincerely  believe  this  continue  in  the  old  way; 
but  "If  you  do  not  wish  Israel  to  be  gathered  from  the 
four  cornel's  of  the  earth  and  brought  back  to  Palestine, 
if  you  believe  that  the  sacrificial  service  was  simply  a  con- 
cession to  views  now  antiquated  and  that  its  restoration  is 
not  desirable,  then  let  the  truth  have  its  place  in  the 
prayers,  .and  be  not  led  by  fear  or  false  considerations  to 
utter  with  your  lips  what  your  heart  does  not  share ;  make 
not  of  your  tongue  a  bow  of  falsehood ;  and  be  assured  that 
if  as  true  Israelites  you  will  speak  the  praise  of  the  Highest 
in  your  houses  of  worship  with  the  expressions  in  the  new 
Prayer-Book,  you  will  perform  a  service  acceptable  to  God. ' ' 
The  protest  of  fifty  orthodox  rabbis  against  the  Prayer- 
Book  elicited  an  answer  from  the  executive  committee  of 
the  Westphalian  Congregational  Union,  in  which  they  de- 
clared themselves  in  full  accord  with  the  principles  ex- 
pressed in  the  Prayer-Book.  "We  desire  no  return  to 
Jerusalem.  We  desire  no  restoration  of  the  sacrificial 
service,  against  which  the  prophets  thundered  with  fiery 
zeal.  What  we  desire  not  shall  not  find  expression  in  our 
prayers ;  otherwise  we  would  be  guilty  of  hypocrisy,  which 
would  be  equivalent  to  a  mockery  of  the  name  of  God.  Our 
fundamental  teachings  and  truths  are  the  belief  in  God 
and  the  lofty  morality  which  the  Bible  enjoins  upon  us  as 
a  duty.''  They  then  point  out  the  steps  they  had  taken 
for  the  religious  education  of  the  young,  and  other  con- 
structive work  and  declare  that  they  have  no  desire  to  tear 
down,  but  to  build  up  and  fortify,  the  faith  which  to  them 
is  dear.  But  "we  publicly  disavow  the  efforts  of  Jewish 
orthodoxy.  We  have  nothing  in  common  with  the  men 
whose  eager  longing  it  is  to  return  to  Palestine  and  whose 
ideal  service  is  the  offering  of  sacrifices.  Our  conception 
of  Judaism  is  different  from  theirs ;  this  we  wish  to  estab- 
lish once  and  for  all."1 

1  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  Supplement  to  Sept.  6,  1895,  p.  3. 


532  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

Frankfort-on-the-Main,  which  witnessed  many  conflicts 
between  reformers  and  traditionalists,  the  home  of  the  rad- 
ical Reform  society  of  1843  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the 
other  the  scene  of  the  activity  of  the  great  pillar  of  ortho- 
doxy, Samson  Raphael  Hirsch,  and  his  unremitting  fight 
against  every  innovation,  has  given  the  most  recent  evi- 
dence of  the  flickering  of  the  reform  spirit  in  Germany. 
At  the  fall  holidays  of  1904,  a  service  was  held  in  a  hall  in 
the  West  End  of  the  city  at  which  a  new  Prayer-Book  with 
German  prayers  was  used.  In  this  Prayer-Book  many  of 
the  old  prayers  were  shortened,  a  number  of  German 
prayers,  selections  from  the  psalms  in  German  translation 
and  German  hymns  were  inserted;  the  singing  was  ac- 
companied by  the  organ,  and  German  sermons  were 
preached.  The  Prayer-Book  was  prepared  by  Dr.  Caesar 
Seligman, *  rabbi  of  the  main  congregation,  but  the  service 
was  more  reformed  than  in  this  congregation.  Many  who 
had  been  estranged  for  years  attended.  Here  the  plan 
vainly  advocated  by  progressionists  in  Berlin  that  provision 
should  be  made  for  all  shades  of  belief  was  carried  out,  and 
with  evident  success. 

On  May  25,  1899,  the  "  Union  of  the  Liberal  Rabbis  of 
Germany"  was  formed  under  the  presidency  of  Dr.  H. 
Vogelstein,  of  Stettin ;  eighteen  rabbis  were  present,  al- 
though forty-eight  signified  their  willingness  to  join.  No 
far-reaching  reforms  were  resolved  upon,  although  the 
spirit  of  the  meeting  was,  as  the  name  of  the  society  indi- 
cates, free  and  liberal.  The  few  definite  resolutions  evince 
the  recognition  of  changed  conditions  in  Jewish  life  and 

1  Seligman  is  one  of  the  most  progressive  rabbis  of  Germany.  A 
course  of  addresses  recntly  delivered  by  him  evince  a  splendid  grasp 
of  the  problems  with  which  Judaism  has  to  grapple  in  Germany 
to-day;  these  were  published  under  the  title  Judenthum  und  Moderne 
Weltanschauung.  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  1905.  In  his  preface  he 
discloses  a  clear  comprehension  of  the  changed  course  which  modern 
views  and  conditions  force  upon  the  Jewish  thinker  who  is  awake  to 
the  signs  of  the  time. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  '    533 

the  desire  to  meet  them.  The  conference  departed  in  a 
number  of  things  from  traditional  usage.  Thus  they  re- 
solved that  marriages  may  be  solemnized  during  the  Sefira, 
the  seven  weeks  intervening  between  the  feasts  of  Passover 
and  Weeks ;  in  urgent  cases  during  the  two  weeks  between 
the  seventeenth  of  Tammuz  and  the  first  of  Ab,  but  in  no 
instance  during  the  nine  days  from  the  first  to  the  ninth 
of  Ab. * 

The  Bar  Mitzwah  ceremony,  the  official  assumption  by 
boys  of  the  duties  of  Judaism  on  their  thirteenth  birthday, 
has  except  in  very  orthodox  congregations,  come  to  be  an 
empty  form.  The  boys  recite  the  benedictions  before  and 
after  reading  the  Torah,  but  the  ceremony  has  no  living 
force.  In  order  to  give  the  ceremony  significance,  the 
rabbis  here  assembled  determined  to  introduce  the  custom 
in  their  congregations  of  making  a  short  address  to  the  boy 
on  the  meaning  of  Judaism  and  the  duties  of  the  Jew  and 
having  the  boy  speak  a  confession  of  faith  in  German  be- 
fore the  congregation. 

The  question  of  cremation  has  assumed  importance  of 
recent  years.  What  to  do  in  cases  when  called  upon. to 
officiate  in  a  case  of  cremation  was  of  interest  to  every 
minister,  notably  as  a  number  of  such  instances  had  taken 
place.2  This  Conference  made  a  declaration  on  the  sub- 
ject: "  Cremation  is  not  in  accord  with  traditional  Jewish 

1  The  three  weeks  between  the  seventeenth  of  Tammuz,  the  day 
when  the   final  onslaught  of  the  Eomans  on  Jerusalem  began,   and 
the  ninth  of  Ab,  the  day  of  the  destruction  of  the  City  and  the 
Temple,  were  observed  as  days  of  mourning  by  the  Jews.     Similar 
resolutions  were  passed  at  the  Augsburg  Synod.     Supra,  439. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  XL VII,  106.     Ibid.,  439.     For  opinions  con,  ibid., 
XXXVIII,  225-6   (Philippson),  LVIII,  376-8,  392-3   (Stossel)  ;  pro- 
XLIX,  564   (Wiener),  LIV,  Supplement  to  April  11,  p.  3.    (Zadoc 
Kahn) ;   for  regulations  in  various  German  communities  concerning 
funeral  services  at  cremations,  ibid.,  LXVTI,  289-90.     The   Central 
Conference  of  American  Eabbis  delivered  an  opinion  at  its  meeting 
in  New  York,  1892,  that  cremation  is  not  anti- Jewish  or  irreligious. 
Year  BooTc,  1892,  p.  41. 


534  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

practice.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  rabbi  to  strive  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  traditional  custom.  Still,  if  requested 
to  officiate,  the  rabbi  should  not  refuse  religious  co-opera- 
tion, but  should  participate  in  the  funeral  service."1 

At  the  second  meeting  of  the  Association,  held  at  Frank- 
fort-on-the-Main,  July  9,  1902,  the  only  discussion  involv- 
ing reform  was  that  concerning  chalitzah.  The  very  fact 
that  German  rabbis  of  the  twentieth  century  seriously  dis- 
cuss this  outgrown  Oriental  custom,  which  is  altogether  at 
variance  with  the  practice  and  thought  of  Jews  in  West- 
ern lands,  shows  how  slightly  reform  has  touched  official 
German  Jewish  practice,  although  life  has  long  ago  repu- 
diated the  practice.  Dr.  Vogelstein  proposed  the  question 
for  discussion  "how  is  the  rabbi  to  proceed  if  the  yibum2 
will  not  permit  the  act  of  chalitzah  to  be  performed  or  if  the 
yibum  cannot  be  reached?"  All  present  agreed  that  the 
Jewish  marriage  law  required  reform,  but  the  difficulty  of 
such  reform  was  pointed  out  because  it  would  be  likely  to 
cause  a  split  in  Judaism.  No  resolution  was  passed,  but 
the  opinion  was  given  expression  to  that  just  as  in  many 
other  cases,  so  also  here,  things  would  so  develop  that  those 
rabbinical  enactments  which  had  disappeared  from  the 
living  consciousness  of  Judaism  would  gradually  pass  out 
of  practice.3 

*A.  Z.  d.  J.,  LXIII,  318-20. 

3  According  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xxv.  3-10,  a  brother  was  compelled 
to  marry  his  deceased  brother's  childless  widow.  The  brother  was 
called  yibum.  If  he  refused,  the  widow  performed  the  act  of  cha- 
litzah as  there  described.  In  mddern  days  this  practice  has  died  out 
among  reformers;  even  among  the  strictly  orthodox  the  yibum 
usually  permits  the  widow  to  perform  this  act,  thus  satisfying  the 
law  and  evading  the  duty  laid  upon  him. 

8  Life,  then,  is  the  great  reformer.  The  religious  anarchy  preva- 
lent among  Jews  due  to  disregard  of  the  traditions  and  the  absence 
of  any  official  representative  body  to  formulate  a  new  vade  mecum 
of  Jewish  practice  and  observance  is  strongly  evidenced  whenever 
any  point  of  practice  or  observance  is  discussed.  There  is  no  recog- 
nized authority  thus  far  in  modern  Jewish  life.  The  Augsburg 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  535 

This  latter  utterance  expresses  a  great  truth,  and  it  is  in- 
deed remarkable  that  these  rabbis  were  not  guided  by  it. 
Truly,  there  are  too  many  burning  questions  involving  the 
very  life  of  Judaism  itself  to  engage  the  attention  of  rabbis 
in  meeting  assembled  for  them  to  waste  their  deliberations 
on  such  an  outgrown  subject  as  clialitzali,  of  the  very  exist- 
ence of  which  few  Occidental  Jews  know. 1 

All  in  all,  it  appears  that  in  Germany  the  problem  of  the 
adjustment  of  Judaism  to  modern  life  and  modern  thought 
has  been  solved  by  no  manner  of  means.  It  is  true  that, 
compared  with  the  Berlin  synagogue  of  one  hundred  years 
ago,  its  modern  successor  shows  the  effect  of  the  liberaliz- 
ing influences  at  work,  and  it  is  still  more  true  that  the 
German  citizen  of  Jewish  belief  and  descent  is  as  far  re- 
moved in  thought  and  outlook  from  his  ghetto  ancestor  of 
one  hundred  years  ago  as  is  pole  from  pole.  But  with  the 
de-Orientalization  and  de-rabbinization  has  gone  hand  in 
hand  a  de-Judaization,  because  the  Jew  of  modern  educa- 
tion and  modern  views  has  not  been  made  to  feel  and 
understand  that  the  eternal  principles  of  his  inherited 
faith  do  not  rise  and  fall  with  traditions,  institutions,  and 
ceremonies  which  have  disappeared  from  active  life,  but 
are  preserved  in  the  mummy  casket  of  the  synagogue.  Juda- 
ism has  become  foreign  to  the  Jew's  life  in  the  centres  of 
German  activity,  and  the  leaders,  instead  of  grappling  with 

synod  had  declared  chalitzah  of  no  significance,  and  had  also 
resolved  that  marriages  could  be  performed  between  Passover  and  the 
Feast  of  Weeks  and  during  the  three  weeks  preceding  the  month  of 
Ab,  but  this  conference  of  liberal  rabbis  seemed  to  be  absolutely  un- 
conscious of  this,  so  little  impression  did  these  synods  leave  and  so 
little  authority  did  they  have. 

1 ' '  In  our  day  it  is  no  longer  a  question  of  obeying  this  law  or 
that,  of  observing  this  ceremony  or  that,  but  the  welfare  of  the 
religion  itself  is  in  the  balance. ' '  These  words  of  a  Jewish  preacher 
are  quoted  with  impressive  sanction  by  a  writer,  Dr.  Bernhard  Weiss, 
who  diagnoses  skillfully  the  present  attitude  of  the  young  men 
towards  Judaism;  see  "Jugend  und  Judenthum,"  A.  Z.  d.  J., 
LXVIII  (1904),  448. 


536  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

this  all-overmastering  problem  of  the  vitalizing  significance 
of  the  religion,  busy  themselves  with  discussions  in  their 
gathering  in  the  year  1904  concerning  the  chalitzah,  an 
Oriental  institution  about  which  their  constituents  know  lit- 
tle and  care  less,  and  at  their  meeting  in  the  year  1907  de- 
bate about  the  prohibited  marriages  of  the  priests  concern- 
ing which  equally  little  is  cared.1  The  romanticism,  too,  of 
neo-orthodoxy  that  delights  in  the  dim  half-light  of  me- 
diaevalism  contributes  much  towards  a  confusion  of  main 
issues,  and  the  neo-nationalist  movement  known  as  Zionism 
has  succeeded  in  increasing  the  Babel.  If  the  reform 
movement  teaches  anything  clearly,  it  is  the  repudiation 
of  the  political  and  national  aspects  of  traditional  Juda- 
ism and  the  clear  declaration  that  Judaism  is  a  religion 
with  a  religious  mission;  neo-orthodoxy,  Zionism,  incon- 
sistent rabbinism,  with  its  canonization  of  the  Shulchan 
Aruk  in  theory  and  its  repudiation  thereof  in  practice,  the 
juridical  interpretation  of  Judaism  as  "law,"  these  are 
the  backward  forces  that  drive  the  Jew  of  modern  training 
and  life  further  and  further  from  his  religion  and  leave 
him  spiritually  bankrupt.  He  comes  in  no  manner  of 
touch  with  the  high  message  of  his  faith ;  in  the  synagogues 
the  prayers  are  uttered  in  an  unintelligible  language;  in 
his  home  there  are  no  Jewish  influences,  in  his  worldly  life 
Judaism  is  a  negligible  factor.  Reform  in  its  interpreta- 
tion of  Judaism  aims  to  meet  these  conditions ;  in  actuality 
it  has  fallen  far  short  of  carrying  out  this  program  in 
Germany,  but  this  must  be  done  if  Judaism  is  to  assert  its 
place  as  a  potent  influence.  New  problems  face  the  Jew 

1  At  this  latest  meeting  of  the  Society  of  Liberal  Rabbis  held  on 
Jan.  2,  1907,  a  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  revised  code  of 
the  marriage  laws  which  is  to  declare  formally  that  the  prohibitions 
of  certain  marriages  for  the  priests  are  no  longer  valid.  What  a 
tragi-comedy !  With  vital  issues  pressing  for  solution  on  eVery  side  a 
committee  is  appointed  to  make  declaration  about  the  prohibited 
marriages  of  the  priestly  caste,  a  meaningless  survival  of  tho  out- 
grown sacrificial  stage  of  the  religion  and  roila  tout! 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  537 

to-day  different  from  those  of  the  ages  past;  "the  theology 
of  Judaism  speaks  of  all  things  except  those  which  are  of 
the  greatest  necessity,  viz.,  the  doubts  and  struggles,  the 
questions  and  pangs  which  agitate  present-day  Israel.  A 
dream  palace  of  past  glory  is  constructed,  and  men  teach 
and  preach  as  though  everything  were  in  beautiful  order 
and  no  chasm  yawns  in  contemporary  Judaism. ' ' *  Thus 
strongly  and  truly  writes  one  of  the  leaders  in  Germany 
who  feels  the  truth  of  the  fundamental  dictum  of  reform, 
viz.,  that  the  progressive  development  of  humanity  re- 
quires a  constant  re-interpretation  of  the  principles  of 
Judaism  in  the  light  of  new  conditions,  and  new  thoughts 
will  bring  the  essential  teachings  of  the  faith  face  to  face 
with  perplexing  questions  and  help  solve  them.  Keform 
teaches  that  Judaism  is  not  merely  a  storehouse  of  tradi- 
tions, not  merely  a  survival  from  a  far  past,  but  a  living 
faith  with  a  message  to  living  men,  and  that  it  requires  only 
"the  living  breath  in  order  that  it  may  be  rejuvenated  from 
within." 

In  England  a  number  of  efforts  have  been  made  during 
the  past  fifteen  years  to  galvanize  the  petrifying  body  of 
Jewry  into  life.  The  West  London  synagogue,  which  had 
been  organized  as  a  reform  congregation,  had  in  the  course 
of  time  become  wedded  to  its  traditions,  and  its  fiftieth 
anniversary  in  1892  found  it  practically  occupying  the 
very  standpoint  it  had  taken  on  the  day  of  its  organiza- 
tion. It  had  not  gone  forward.  It  had  ceased  to  be  an 
energizing  liberal  force.  It  lived  upon  its  past.  The 
United  Synagogue,  with  the  chief  rabbi  at  its  head,  was 
encrusted  with  traditionalism,  and  took  no  note  of  and 
made  no  provision  whatsoever  for  the  hundreds  of  Jews 
who  were  drifting  away  and  for  whom  Judaism  had  ceased 
to  have  a  living  message.  The  race  Jew  loomed  large  upon 
the  horizon;  to  all  religion  and  all  Jewish  spirituality 

1  Caesar  Seligman,  Judenthum  and  Moderns  Weltanschauung, 
preface.  Frankfort-on-the-Main,  1905. 


538  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

he  turned  a  deaf  ear.  Indifference  was  abroad  in  the  land. 
The  public  services  were  unedifying,  and  to  very  many 
unintelligible,  being  conducted  in  Hebrew  altogether. 
Ritual  and  life  were  contradictory  of  one  another.  The 
Sabbath  had  become  in  great  part  a  work-day  and  while  its 
praises  as  a  day  of  rest  were  extolled  in  the  synagogues 
thousands  were  engaged  in  their  daily  vocations.  The 
Prayer-Book  contained  doctrines  in  which  English  Jews 
had  ceased  to  believe.  True,  a  number  of  individuals  were 
awake  to  the  sorry  condition  of  Judaism,  and  gave  voice 
occasionally  in  written  and  spoken  word  to  the  necessity 
of  introducing  such  changes  in  the  public  services  and  ex- 
positions of  Judaism  as  were  necessary  to  reclaim  to  their 
Jewish  allegiance  a  generation  which  had  grown  up  under 
conditions  different  absolutely  from  those  of  the  ghetto 
period.  Moved  by  considerations  of  this  character,  a  com- 
mittee of  gentlemen,  of  whom  Mr.  F.  H.  Harvey  Samuel 
was  chairman,  took  steps  to  introduce  a  service  on  Sab- 
bath afternoons  which  should  be  of  such  a  nature  as  would 
attract  those  who  found  no  spiritual  uplift  in  the  existing 
synagogal  services.  This  movement  was  inaugurated  at 
the  West  Hampstead  Town  Hall  on  February  22,  1890. 
The  movement  was  known  as  the  Hampstead  Sabbath 
Afternoon  Services  and  continued  for  three  years.  They 
were  conducted  by  the  Rev.  Morris  Joseph,  who  arranged 
an  order  of  service. *  In  his  preface,  the  author  who  was 
the  guiding  spirit  of  this  movement  stated  well  the  reason 
which  led  him  and  his  associates  to  initiate  these  services: 
* '  There  is  much  reason  to  fear, ' '  wrote  he,  ' '  that  the  appeal 
made  by  the  liturgy  of  the  synagogue  elicits  but  a  feeble 
response  from  the  intellect  and  the  emotions  of  the  modern 
Jew.  The  aspect  of  our  places  of  worship  on  Sabbath 
mornings  tends  to  show  that  the  service  lacks  these  vital 

1  Order  of  Prayer  as  used  at  the  Sabbath  afternoon  services  at 
Hampstead,  with  an  English  paraphrase  of  the  Hebrew  Text,  ar- 
ranged and  written  by  the  Bev.  Morris  Joseph,  5650-1890. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  539 

elements  which  are  needed  in  order  to  ensure  its  sway  over 
the  mind  and  the  heart.  Even  of  those  who  regularly 
attend  a  synagogue,  many  go  away  unimpressed  without 
having  experienced  one  prayerful  feeling.  But  besides 
these,  there  are  many  others  whose  habitual  absence  from 
the  House  of  God  is  plainly  attributable  to  the  failure  of 
the  service  to  perform  its  special  function.  This  moral 
divorce  between  the  educated  Jew  and  the  synagogue  is 
deeply  to  be  deplored,  inasmuch  as  it  portends  his  eventual 
alienation,  or  that  of  his  children,  from  Judaism,  perhaps 
from  religion  itself.  It  is  in  the  hope  of  aiding  to  avert 
such  a  danger  that  the  services  for  which  the  present 
Prayer-Book  is  compiled  have  been  initiated.  In  deter- 
mining their  form,  regard  has  been  had  to  modern  ideas  and 
aspirations;  but  care  has  been  taken  at  the  same  time  to 
avoid  those  radical  changes  which  are  calculated  to  rob  the 
liturgy  of  its  distinctively  Jewish  character,  and  to  weaken 
that  feeling  of  attachment  to  Israel's  religion  which  it  is 
its  chief  business  to  enforce." 

The  services  consisted  of  the  traditional  Mincha  prayers. 
There  were,  however,  certain  omissions  and  changes.  The 
prayer  p>^  &C1  was  abridged.  The  most  important 
change,  inasmuch  as  it  involved  a  doctrinal  point,  was  that 
in  the  benediction  Pi¥1  the  word  ^V  6?  "songs"  was  substi- 
tuted for  *B"N  " burnt  offerings,"  making  this  portion  of 
the  supplication  read:  " Restore  Thy  worship  to  Thy 
sanctuary  and  let  the  supplications  and  son gs  of  Israel  ever 
be  acceptable  unto  Thee,"  instead  of  "the  burnt  offerings 
of  Israel. ' '  This  changed  wording  of  the  traditional  prayer 
but  declared  what  most  modern  Jews  agreed  with.  The 
restoration  of  the  sacrificial  worship  as  conducted  in  the 
Temple  of  Jerusalem  is,  it  is  true,  still  prayed  for  in  ortho- 
dox synagogues,  but  it  is  more  than  doubtful  whether  such 
sacrifices  would  be  restored  even  were  the  apparently  im- 
possible to  happen,  viz.,  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple  on 
Mori  ah  ?s  hill.  This  is  one  of  the  instances  of  that  disagree- 


540  ™E  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ment  between  liturgy  and  belief  which,  the  reform  move- 
ment aimed  and  aims  to  remove.  Other  features  in  which 
these  services  differed  from  the  orthodox  form  consisted  in 
the  use  of  instrumental  music  and  the  participation  of  a 
mixed  choir.  The  Ten  Commandments  were  read  at  each 
service.  These  services  were  an  advance  upon  the  only  re- 
form service  known  in  London,  viz.,  the  West  London 
Synagogue  in  the  following  points :  the  Hebrew  portion  of 
the  service  was  followed  by  prayers,  psalms,  and  hymns  in 
English;  the  sexes,  though  separated,  were  seated  on  the 
same  floor,  and  the  utmost  freedom  was  given  the  preachers. 

Besides  Mr.  Joseph,  occasional  preachers  at  these  services 
were  the  Revs.  Prof.  Marks,  Dr.  Lowy  and  Isidore  Harris, 
ministers  of  the  West  London  Synagogue,  and  the  Messrs. 
Claude  G.  Montefiore  and  Israel  Abrahams.  In  1892,  two 
years  after  these  services  had  been  inaugurated  the  Board 
of  Management  of  the  St.  John's  Wood  Synagogue  ex- 
pressed their  willingness  to  have  the  services  conducted  in 
their  house  of  worship,  provided  the  consent  of  the  chief 
rabbi  could  be  obtained.  The  negotiations  failed  because 
the  chief  rabbi  demanded  that  the  following  conditions  be 
complied  with,  viz.,  that  the  prayer  for  the  re-institution 
of  the  sacrifices  be  restored ; 1  that  the  women  be  relegated 
to  the  galleries,  and  that  the  preachers  be  limited  to  such 
gentlemen  as  he  approved  of.  The  Committee  found  it 
impossible  to  accept  these  conditions,  although  for  the  sake 
of  securing  the  great  advantage  of  conducting  the  services 
in  a  synagogue,  they  would  have  agreed  to  accepting  the 
further  condition  imposed  by  the  chief  rabbi  involving  the 
discontinuance  of  instrumental  music.  The  services  con- 
tinued a  year  longer  as  an  independent  movement.  'A 

1  Shortly  after  this  the  ministry  of  the  Hampstead  Synagogue, 
then  just  completed,  was  offered  Mr.  Joseph.  He  was  inhibited, 
however,  by  the  Chief  Kabbi,  because,  among  other  things,  he 
objected  to  praying  for  the  re-institution  of  the  sacrificial  worship. 
In  1893  Mr.  Joseph  was  elected  minister  of  the  West  London  Syna- 
gogue of  British  Jews. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  541 

selection  of  the  sermons  preached  at  these  services  by  Mr. 
Joseph  was  published  under  the  title  "The  Ideal  in  Juda- 
ism."1 

Another  Harapstead  movement  of  a  more  radical  char- 
acter was  the  attempt  in  1899  to  organize  a  reform  congre- 
gation with  services  on  Sunday ;  a  call  was  issued  on  May 
28th  of  that  year,  in  which  the  signers  stated  "after  most 
earnest  reflection,  we  are  convinced  that  whilst  being 
determined  to  safeguard  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day, 
Sabbath,  it  is  an  indispensable  feature  of  the  new  move- 
ment that  the  daily  morning  service  shall  be  so  adapted  as 
to  enable  many  persons  with  their  children  to  avail  them- 
selves of  public  worship  on  Sunday  mornings."  True, 
this  effort  did  not  succeed,  but  it  demonstrated  the  short- 
sightedness of  the  policy  of  the  representatives  of  official 
Judaism  in  the  matter  of  the  earliest  Hampstead  move- 
ment. Had  the  chief  rabbi  given  his  sanction  to  the  Sab- 
bath afternoon  services ;  had  he  permitted  them  to  be  held 
in  a  synagogue  under  his  jurisdiction  with  the  few  unim- 
portant changes  desired,  he  would  have  precluded  the  like- 
lihood of  the  formation  of  this  much  more  radical  senti- 
ment that  found  expression  in  this  call.  Both  he  and  the 
Eev.  J.  F.  Stern  preached  against  the  introduction  of  Sun- 
day services.2  Notable  in  the  chief  rabbi's  sermon  was, 
not  the  position  that  he  took  in  unalterable  opposition  to  a 
service  on  Sunday  (this  was  natural  and  to  be  expected), 
but  his  appeal  to  the  authorities  of  the  West  London  Syna- 
gogue with  which  the  new  congregation  proposed  to  associate 

1  The  Ideal  in  Judaism  and  Other  Sermons,  by  the  Rev.  Morris 
Joseph,  preached  during  1890-91-92.     London,  1893. 

2  See  sermon  Jewish  Chronicle,  1899,  June  23,  p.  20.     See  also  the 
interesting   communications  on   this   subject   of   Sunday   services  by 
L.  J".  Greenberg,  C.  G.  Montefiore  and  O.  J.  Simon   (all  in  favor), 
Hid.,  June   30,   1899,  8-9,  and  by  Samuel  Montagu,  K.  M.    (Lady 
Magnus),  and  F.  D.  Mocatta  (all  against),  ibid.,  July  7,  p.  8,  and 
July  14,  p.  9;  also  a  letter  from  F.  H.  Harvey  Samuel  (in  favor), 
Hid. 


542  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

itself  not  to  countenance  this  movement.  Truly,  the 
whirligig  of  time  brings  its  revenges.  In  1842  the  West 
London  Synagogue  was  anathematized  by  the  rabbis  and 
the  lay  authorities  of  the  official  synagogue ;  in  1899  it  was 
appealed  to  by  a  successor  of  the  chief  rabbi  who  had  pro- 
nounced the  Cherem  upon  it  to  join  hands  with  him  in  sup- 
pressing a  forward  movement.  The  chief  rabbi,  in  his  ser- 
mon, recommended  the  introduction  of  Friday  evening  or 
Sabbath  afternoon  services.  Even  he  had  been  brought  to 
the  recognition  that  something  must  be  done  to  attract  to 
the  synagogue  the  great  number  who,  because  of  economic 
and  other  conditions,  cannot  or  do  not  attend  the  regular 
Sabbath  services. 

Shortly  after  this  incident  was  closed  a  statement  ap- 
peared in  the  London  Jewish  press  under  the  heading, 
"The  Sunday  Movement— A  Religious  Manifesto"  signed 
by  0.  J.  Simon. 1  In  this  manifesto  Mr.  Simon  expressed 
his  intention  of  inaugurating  a  service  on  Sunday  morn- 
ings at  eleven  o'clock,  mainly  in  English.  The  prayers 
were  to  be  founded  on  the  Jewish  liturgy ;  there  was  to  be 
no  separation  of  the  sexes ;  men  were  to  worship  with  un- 
covered head;  any  one  who  so  desired  could  kneel  in 
prayer.  He  stated  that  he  had  no  desire  to  cause  any 
breach  in  Judaism,  and  therefore  requested  all  who  in- 
tended to  join  with  him  in  this  movement  not  to  withdraw 
from  the  congregations  with  which  they  were  affiliated. 
As  an  earnest  of  his  desire  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the 
Jewish  community  and  avoid  schisms,  he  announced  that 
various  ministers  of  the  United  Synagogue  and  all  the 
ministers  of  the  reform  synagogue  would  be  invited  to 
preach,  although  he  himself  was  to  be  the  regular  preacher. 
After  the  first  service  at  which  he  would  deliver  the  inau- 
gural sermon,  the  Chief  Rabbi  and  the  Haham  of  the 
Portuguese  community  would  be  invited  to  preach  on  the 
two  succeeding  Sundays.  This  manifesto  was  the  culmi- 

'  Jewish  Chronicle,  July  28,  1899,  8-9. 


BECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  543 

nation  of  an  agitation  which  Mr.  Simon  had  been  conducting 
for  some  years  on  this  subject  of  the  mission  of  Judaism. 
In  the  Fortnightly  Review  for  October,  1896,  in  an  article 
on  "The  Mission  of  Judaism,"  he  advocated  that  Judaism 
assume  a  missionaiy  role  and  make  active  propaganda  to 
gather  within  its  fold  those  who  accept  the  universal  ele- 
ments of  Judaism  without  subscribing  to  such  ritualistic 
requirements  as  circumcision,  eating  unleavened  bread  on 
Passover,  etc. ;  he  would  have  a  modern  institution  cor- 
responding to  the  old  "Proselytes  of  the  Gate."  l  He  be- 
lieved in  the  spiritual  possibilities  of  Judaism,  but  he  also 
held  that  in  no  age  was  there  a  greater  need  of  spiritual 
revival  in  Israel  than  at  present. 2  This  revival  within  and 
without  the  ranks  of  Judaism  he  intended  to  bring  about 
by  this  service  at  which  he  would  preach  those  elements 
and  doctrines  of  Judaism  that  stamp  it  as  a  universal  re- 
ligion ;  his  purpose  by  this  service  was  first  to  give  oppor- 
tunity to  such  Jews  as  do  not  observe  the  Jewish  religion 
by  attending  on  Saturday  to  do  so  by  coming  on  Sunday, 
and  secondly  ' '  to  form  a  bridge  of  religious  fellowship  and 
common  worship  across  the  gulf  which  so  far  has  separated 
monotheists  who  are  Jews,  and  monotheists  who  are  not 
Jews.  In  other  words,  it  is  my  intention  to  make  the  ex- 
periment, however  inadequately,  to  carry  out  the  mission 

*Mr.  Simon  summarized  his  opinions  on  this  subject  in  the  Jewish 
Quarterly  Review,  IX,  177-84  (January,  1897)  ;  see  the  interesting 
symposium  called  forth  by  his  views,  ibid.,  184-223;  Mr.  Simon  re- 
plied to  his  critics,  ibid.,  403-428.  See  also  his  article,  "The  Unity 
of  the  Keligious  Idea,"  Fortnightly  Seview,  April,  1899. 

*  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  29,  1897,  3-4.  An  amusing  incident  in 
connection  with  this  expression  of  views  on  missionary  Judaism  was 
the  reception  of  a  dispatch  by  the  chief  rabbi  from  St.  Petersburg  to 
this  effect,  "  Anti-Semitic  press  spreads  the  information  that  Mr. 
Simon,  of  London,  contemplates  the  formation  of  a  Missionary 
Society  for  the  purpose  of  converting  members  of  other  creeds  to 
Judaism.  Explanation  needful"  (see  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  29, 
1897,  p.  12).  Everything  is  grist  for  the  anti-Semitic  mill,  even  the 
most  improbable  schemes  of  visionary  idealists. 


544  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  Judaism  by  proclaiming  its  divine  truths  to  those  who 
are  not  of  our  race;  that  is,  to  put  into  effect  the  mission- 
ary aspect  of  Judaism. ' ' x  He  held  a  service  to  carry  out 
these  ideas  on  October  29,  1899.  The  movement  died  at 
birth.  Every  one  recognized  the  originator's  purity  and 
singleness  of  purpose,  but  a  religious  departure  such  as 
was  proposed  required  for  its  success  elements  and  qualities 
which  were  evidently  lacking  and  this  plan  to  bridge  over 
religious  differences  remained  a  pious  and  an  impractical 
dream. 

Most  successful  of  all  latter-day  attempts  in  England  to 
interpret  Judaism  in  a  manner  consonant  with  the  modern 
spirit  is  the  movement  known  as  the  Jewish  Religious  Union. 
At  a  meeting  held  on  November  23,  1901,  by  a  number  of 
English  Jews  the  question  of  how  to  retain  for  Judaism 
many  who  were  drifting  away  for  some  reason  or  other  was 
earnestly  discussed.  The  decision  was  arrived  at  that  one 
of  the  chief  means  whereby  this  could  be  accomplished 
would  be  the  institution  of  special  services  of  such  a  nature 
as  would  attract  those  who  were  out  of  touch  with  the  serv- 
ices as  conducted  in  the  existing  synagogue.2  A  provi- 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  Oct.  20,  1899. 

aAt  the  general  meeting  of  the  members  of  the  Union  held  Octo- 
ber 22,  1903,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  year's  work,  the  Presi- 
dent, Mr.  C.  G.  Montefiore,  in  his  address,  stated  the  reasons  that  had 
led  him  and  his  confreres  to  organize  the  Union.  He  said  that  the  Union 
had  been  founded  by  various  men  and  women  of  the  Jewish  faith  by 
no  means  all  holding  identical  religious  opinions,  with  no  identical 
views  of  Judaism,  but  agreeing  to  see  facts  as  they  were,  and  not  to 
misinterpret  these  facts.  They  were  agreed  also  that  the  facts, 
though  sad  in  some  respects  and  regrettable,  were  not  so  black  as  to 
justify  despair;  and  the  people  who  had  founded  the  Union  were 
agreed  that  it  was  not  wrong,  but  right,  to  try  and  find  a  remedy  for 
the  sad  state  of  things  that  they  saw  around  them.  They  saw  that  a 
great  many  persons  in  the  East  and  West  of  London  were  drifting 
away  from  Judaism,  were  becoming  Jews  only  in  name — nominal 
Jews,  so-called.  Often  they  drifted  away  from  religion  altogether, 
but  at  any  rate  the  desertions  from  Judaism  and  religion  were 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  545 

sional  committee  was  appointed  which  issued  a  circular  to 
such  as  it  was  expected  would  sympathize  with  the  move- 
ment, explaining  its  purpose.  A  number  of  favorable 
answers  being  received,  a  meeting  was  held  on  February  16, 
1902,  at  which  the  Jewish  Religious  Union  was  organized 
and  a  committee  elected,  with  Claude  G.  Montefiore  as 
President.  The  Committee  comprised  names  of  leading 
spirits  of  the  Jewish  community.  Especially  notable  in 
the  composition  of  the  personnel  of  the  committee  was  the 
fact  that  ministers  both  of  the  United  Synagogue  and  the 
reform  Congregation  were  included,  Rev.  S.  Singer  being 
one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  and  the  Revs.  A.  A.  Green,  J.  F. 
Stern  and  Morris  Joseph  being  members  of  the  committee. 
The  Union  hoped  to  gain  the  sympathy  of  the  whole  com- 
munity and  avoided  attaching  itself  to  any  existing  syna- 
gogue. It  was  an  independent  movement,  looking  partic- 
ularly to  the  regaining  for  Judaism  of  the  many  who  were 
unaffiliated  with  or  indifferent  to  the  synagogue ;  therefore 
it  included  in  its  committee  representatives  of  all  shades 
of  opinion  and  ritual.  Another  noteworthy  feature  in  the 
list  of  officers  was  the  inclusion  among  the  vice-presidents 
of  Miss  Lily  H.  Montagu,  by  which  the  new  religious  or- 
ganization evidently  desired  to  express  its  departure  from 

sufficiently  sad  and  agitating  to  any  one  who  wished  to  consider  the 
future  of  Judaism.  They  did  not  think  it  was  right  to  shut  their 
eyes  to  these  facts  and  refuse  to  see  them  and  deal  with  them.  They 
also  decided  not  to  accept  them  as  irremediable.  They  did  not  think 
these  facts  were  due  to  mere  apathy,  indifference,  and  decay  of  all 
kinds  of  religious  sentiments.  No  doubt  these  causes  were  part 
causes,  but  they  felt  that  these  were  not  the  only  causes.  They  had 
felt  that  they  were  due  to  a  lack  of  sympathy  for  the  existing  em- 
bodiment of  Judaism.  "While  large  numbers  felt  sympathy  for  and 
satisfaction  with  the  religious  services  of  the  synagogue,  they  could 
not  blind  themselves  to  the  fact  that  there  were  many  persons  who 
did  not  find  this  satisfaction  and  did  not  feel  this  sympathy.  It 
was  a  mistaken  policy  that  nothing  should  be  done  for  these  persons. 
Jewish  Chronicle,  October  30,  1903,  15. 
35 


546  THE  REFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

the  traditional  Jewish  view  of  the  religious  inferiority  of 
woman  in  the  public  life  and  services. 

The  object  of  the  Union  was  declared  to  be  "to  provide 
means  for  deepening  the  religious  spirit  among  those  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  community  who  are  not  in  sympathy 
with  the  present  synagogue  services,  or  who  are  unable  to 
attend  them"  and  the  methods  by  which  this  object  was  to 
be  attained  were  "the  establishment  of  religious  services 
supplementary  to  those  provided  by  the  existing  syna- 
gogues, the  holding  of  public  lectures  and  the  issue  of  pub- 
lications. ' ' 

The  Committee  was  given  power  to  arrange  for  the  carry- 
ing out  of  this  object.  At  the  February  meeting  a  number 
of  members  had  advocated  that  the  services  of  the  Union 
be  held  on  Sunday  morning.  They  were  not  held  on  Sat- 
urday morning  for  two  reasons:  first,  because  the  Union 
did  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  desiring  to  conflict  with 
the  existing  synagogue  services ;  and  secondly,  because  the 
Union  desired  to  reach  those  whose  vocations  did  not  permit 
them  to  attend  service  on  Saturday  morning.  In  spite  of 
the  expressed  opinions  in  favor  of  services  on  Sunday 
morning,  the  Committee  felt  that  for  various  reasons  it 
would  be  wiser  to  hold  the  services  on  Saturday  afternoon. 
The  committee  also  resolved  that  the  service  should  be 
of  moderate  length,  that  the  prayers  should  be  mostly  in 
the  vernacular,  being  in  part  founded  on  the  Jewish  liturgy 
and  in  part  specially  composed  for  the  services.  There 
was  to  be  instrumental  music  and  the  sexes  were  not  to  be 
separated.  When  it  came  to  securing  a  place  wherein  to 
hold  the  services,  it  was  determined  that  the  chief  rabbi 
be  waited  upon  in  order  to  learn  whether  any  one  of  the 
constituent  synagogues  of  the  United  Synagogue  could  be 
secured  at  an  hour  on  Sabbath  afternoon  when  it  was  im- 
used  for  a  service  conducted  along  the  lines  indicated  but 
without  instrumental  music.  The  Chief  Rabbi  advised  the 
deputation  of  the  committee  that  waited  on  him  that  it 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUBOPE  547 

was  impossible  for  him  to  sanction  the  holding  of  such  a 
service  in  any  of  the  synagogues  under  his  jurisdiction. 
The  Committee  then  determined  to  arrange  for  the  services 
as  originally  intended  with  instrumental  music  and  secured 
the  Wharncliffe  Rooms,  attached  to  the  Hotel  Great  Cen- 
tral, for  this  purpose. 1 

The  first  service  was  held  on  Saturday  afternoon  Octo- 
ber 18,  1902.  The  service  was  conducted  by  the  Rev.  S. 
Singer,  and  the  sermon  was  delivered  by  Mr.  C.  G.  Monte- 
fiore.  The  features  wherein  this  service  differed  from  the 
regular  Jewish  services  in  the  English  synagogues  were  that. 
the  prayers  were  almost  entirely  in  the  vernacular.  There 
was  no  reading  from  the  Scroll;  there  was  no  chazanut; 
men  and  women  sat  together,  but  the  men  worshiped  with 
covered  head :  there  was  a  choir  accompanied  by  an  instru- 
ment. In  his  sermon  2  Mr.  Montefiore  dwelt  on  the  need 
of  public  worship :  the  sermon  was  in  part  a  defense  of  the 
Union ;  the  service  instituted  by  the  Union  was  justified  be- 
cause Judaism  permits  more  than  one  kind  of  service; 
the  prevailing  form  of  service  did  not  appeal  to  very  many, 
who  are  therefore  lost  to  Judaism ;  for  these  the  Union  was 
providing  a  form  of  service  entirely  Jewish  in  essence  and 
likely  to  draw  back  these  wanderers.  On  Sunday,  the  day 
following  this  inaugural  service,  a  public  meeting  of  the 
members  of  the  Union  was  held  at  which  Miss  Lily  H.  Mon- 
tagu read  a  paper  on  "The  Objects  and  Methods  of  the 
Union."  in  which  she  declared  that  "the  founders  of  the 
Jewish  Religious  Union  believe  it  possible  to  transmit  the 
essentials  of  Judaism  in  forms  adapted  to  the  special  needs 
of  the  day."3 

The  organization  of  the  Union  and  its  practical  achieve- 

1  See    report    of    the    secretary,    A.    Lindo    Henry,    at    meeting    of 
Oct.  20,  1903;  Jewish  Chronicle,  Oct.  30,  1903,  p.  15. 

2  "Jewish   Addresses  delivered   at   the  services  of  the  Jewish  Re- 
ligious Union  during  the  first  session,  1902-3,"  1-15.     London,  1904. 

3  Jewish  Chronicle,  Oct.  24,  1902,  11. 


548  THE  REFOKM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ment  in  inaugurating  these  services  called  forth  a  storm  of 
opposition,  and  gave  rise  to  a  number  of  interesting 
developments.  The  opposition  denounced  the  services  as 
un-Jewish,  notably  because  it  was  an  extra-synagogal 
movement,  and  thus  broke  the  link  of  tradition;  further, 
because  at  its  services  there  was  no  reading  from  the  Scroll, 
because  of  the  paucity  of  Hebrew  prayers,  and  because 
some  of  the  hymns  were  Christian  in  character.1 

The  Kev.  A.  A.  Green,  a  minister  of  the  United  Syna- 
gogue, withdrew  from  the  committee  of  the  Union  because 
he  desired  reform  within  the  synagogue;  he  believed  the 
Jewish  Eeligious  Union  made  a  mistake  in  starting  a 
separatist  movement  and  not  confining  itself  to  work  with- 
in the  congregations  and  bringing  them  to  its  standpoint. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Rev.  Morris  Joseph,  in  a  sermon  on 
"Hebrew  and  the  Synagogue,"  preached  at  the  Berkeley 
Street  Synagogue  on  October  23,  1902  (Shemini  Atzeret), 
endorsed  the  Union  as  ancillary  to  the  synagogue. 

In  a  sermon  preached  at  the  St.  John's  Wood  Syna- 
gogue, December  6,  on  "The  Old  Paths,"  the  Chief  Rabbi 
denounced  the  service  of  the  Union  as  non- Jewish;  he 
charged  specifically  that  in  the  prayer  Ahabah  Rablxili, 
which  the  Union's  Prayer-Book  had  included  in  an  Eng- 
lish version,  the  words,  ' '  0  bring  us  from  the  four  corners 
of  the  earth,"  are  omitted  and  that  this  omission  meant  the 
discarding  of  the  belief  in  the  ingathering  of  Israel;  also 
that  in  the  Sabbath  Psalm  (xcii)  verses  8-13  are  omitted— 
to  mutilate  a  psalm  is  unjustifiable ;  further,  that  the  hymns 
were  not  Jewish— "one  of  these  has  been  composed  from 
so  essentially  a  Trinitarian  standpoint  that  two  lines  had 
to  be  modified."2 

1  A  flood  of  communications  in  criticism  of  the  Union  deluged  the 
columns  of  the  Jewish  press;  see  particularly  the  letter  of  M. 
Hyamson,  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  23,  1903,  p.  6,  and  of  pn^i  p 
ibid.,  Jan.  30,  p.  8. 

3  See  Sermon  Jewish  Chronicle,  Dec.  12,  1902,  p.  8. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  549 

Israel  Abrahams,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Union,  and 
a  member  of  the  committee,  answered  this  attack  in  "An 
Open  Letter  to  the  Chief  Rabbi."1  The  criticism  of  the 
Union's  form  of  the  prayer,  Ahabah  Rabbah,  he  claimed, 
was  unjustified.  "The  Union  has  formulated  no  beliefs, 
least  of  all  has  it  assumed  an  attitude  one  way  or  the 
other  on  the  Zionist  question.  If  it  had,  as  a  body,  dis- 
claimed the  belief  in  the  ingathering  of  Israel,  it  would  not 
have  included  Psalm  cxlvii."  He  claimed  that  the  form 
of  the  Aliabali  Rabbah  adopted  in  the  Union's  Prayer- 
Book  was  the  older  form  as  found  by  the  investigations 
of  scholars,  and  that  the  phrase  in  question  is  a  later  inter- 
polation. As  for  the  charges  of  the  mutilation  of  the  Sab- 
bath Psalm,  skipping  verses  is  sanctioned  by  tradition ;  the 
Jewish  ritual  always  made  the  freest  use  of  the  Bible.  He 
referred  the  Chief  Rabbi  to  his  own  course  when,  in  arrang- 
ing the  synagogue  service  for  the  Queen's  Diamond  Jubilee 
in  1897,  he  used  Psalm  xvi.,  but  stopped  at  verse  7  for  good 
reasons,  it  is  true ;  but,  having  done  this  himself,  the  Chief 
Rabbi  had  no  justification  in  criticizing  a  similar  act  of  the 
Union. 

As  for  the  criticism  that  the  book  is  un-Jewish,  the 
writer  called  attention  to  the  distinctively  Jewish  ideas  ex- 
pressed in  the  prayers,  e.  g.,  the  election  of  Israel.  God  is 
invoked  as  ' '  God  of  our  fathers ; "  the  departure  from  Egypt 
is  alluded  to;  Israel  is  spoken  of  as  "God's  people;"  Isra- 
el's mission  is  dwelt  upon;  "the  joy  of  living,"  a  distinct- 
ively Jewish  doctrine,  is  laid  stress  upon ;  the  priestly  bless- 
ing is  a  portion  of  every  service.  The  object  of  the  Union 
is  to  win  back  those  who  have  strayed ;  if  such  were  led  to 
believe  that  the  Union  is  non- Jewish,  they  would  be  justified 
in  saying,  "Let  us  cease  bothering  about  Judaism."  This 
may  not  be  permitted  to  happen ;  the  service  must  be  pro- 
claimed to  be  Jewish,  as  it  indeed  is,  and  thus  win  the 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  Jan.  9,  1903,  11-12. 


550      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

enthusiastic  devotion  of  those  who  now  are  indifferent,  or 
worse. 

Undoubtedly  because  of  the  pronouncement  of  the  Chief 
Rabbi  against  the  Union  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Stern  severed  his 
connection  with  it.  This  left  the  Rev.  S.  Singer  as  the  only 
minister  of  the  United  Synagogue  on  the  Union's  com- 
mittee. Mr.  Singer  continued  to  serve  on  the  committee 
during  the  first  season.  On  Passover,  1903,  in  his  sermon 
on  "Art  thou  for  us  or  for  our  adversaries?"  he  pleaded 
for  charity  of  views,  and  urged  that  men  should  not  regard 
as  adversaries  those  who  differed  with  them.  Undoubt- 
edly he  referred  to  the  criticism  directed  at  the  Jewish  Re- 
ligious Union  when  he  said  "terms  like  'un- Jewish'  are 
flung  about  rather  wildly  nowadays,  and  in  a  spirit  which 
to  say  the  least,  is  anything  but  Jewish. "  1  In  a  published 
correspondence  between  Sir  Samuel  Montagu  and  Mr. 
Singer  dated  April  15,  1903,  the  former  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  his  connection  with  the  Union  was  causing  his 
friends  uneasiness  and  would  undoubtedly  be  subversive 
of  his  influence;  he  therefore  asked  Mr.  Singer  to  with- 
draw from  the  Union  on  the  ground  that  the  welfare  of  his 
congregation  demanded  it.  In  his  reply  Mr.  Singer  signi- 
fied his  intention  of  withdrawing,  although  he  felt  that 
the  Union  was  doing  a  great  and  sacred  work  for  such  in 
whose  behalf  no  one  had  hitherto  stirred  a  finger  and  who 
were  drifting  away  from  Judaism.  He  had  hoped  that  his 
would  be  the  privilege  and  happiness  to  assist  in  this  work ; 
still,  if  the  welfare  of  the  congregation,  to  build  up  which 
he  had  given  the  greater  part  of  his  life,  was  jeopardized, 
as  seemed  to  be  the  case  by  his  connection  with  the  Union, 
he  felt  that  he  must  withdraw. 2 

It  was  claimed  by  the  critics  of  the  Union  that  be- 
cause in  its  Prayer-Book  all  passages  petitioning  for  the 
return  to  Palestine  had  been  eliminated,  no  minister  of 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  April  24,  1903,  p.  19. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


EECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUEOPE  551 

the  United  Synagogue  or  of  the  Portuguese  congrega- 
tion could  possibly  officiate  there ;  such  a  one  must  dissolve 
his  connection  either  with  the  synagogue  or  the  Union. 
Among  the  members  of  the  Union's  Committee  were  two 
honorary  officers  of  the  Council  of  the  United  Synagogue, 
A.  H.  Jessel  and  Felix  Davis.  At  a  meeting  of  the  Coun- 
cil held  January  13,  1903,  L.  J.  Greenberg  moved  a  vote  of 
censure  upon  these  two  officers  on  the  ground  that  the  two 
positions  they  held  were  incompatible,  inasmuch  as  the 
Union  represented  a  religious  tendency  altogether  differ- 
ent from  that  of  the  United  Synagogue.  The  motion  was 
roundly  defeated,  the  opposition  having  taken  the  ground 
that  the  two  gentlemen  in  question  acted  in  their  private 
capacity  in  the  affairs  of  the  Union,  not  as  officers  of  the 
synagogue ;  had  the  mover  of  the  vote  of  censure  desired  an 
expression  regarding  the  Jewishness  of  the  services  of  the 
Union,  he  should  have  made  his  motion  of  that  tenor,  and 
not  have  given  it  a  personal  coloring. 

The  peremptory  refusal  of  the  Chief  Rabbi  at  the  early 
stage  of  the  Union's  activity  to  grant  the  use  of  a  con- 
stituent synagogue  for  the  Sabbath  afternoon  services  pre- 
cluded any  rapprochement  between  the  committee  of  the 
Union  and  the  Council  of  the  United  Synagogue.  This 
was  not  the  case,  however,  with  the  authorities  of  the  West 
London  Synagogue,  the  reform  congregation.  At  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Council  of  this  Synagogue  held  on  March  1,  1903, 
it  was  resolved  to  recommend  to  the  seat-holders  at  the 
annual  meeting  on  March  29  to  place  the  synagogue  at  the 
disposal  of  the  Union  under  certain  conditions.  Several 
meetings  had  been  held  between  the  committee  of  the  Union 
and  the  Council  of  the  synagogue;  the  advances  had  been 
made  by  the  latter.  When  the  Rev.  Morris  Joseph,  the 
minister  of  this  synagogue,  had,  in  accordance  with  its  laws, 
asked  permission  of  the  Council  to  participate  in  the  serv- 
ices of  the  Union,  this  was  granted,  and  at  the  same  time 
an  invitation  was  sent  to  the  Union  asking  that  they  come 


552      THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

into  conference  with  the  Council  of  the  Synagogue  to 
determine  whether  their  services  could  not  be  held  there. 
When,  owing  to  the  opposition  aroused  in  the  community, 
it  became  clear  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  obtain  one  of 
the  constituent  synagogues  of  the  United  Synagogue  for 
the  services,  and  since  objection  was  raised  to  holding  the 
services  in  a  hotel,  the  committee  of  the  Union  decided  to 
confer  with  the  Council  of  the  West  London  Synagogue; 
the  conference  resulted  in  the  acceptance  by  the  committee 
of  the  offer  of  the  Council.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
seat-holders  of  the  Synagogue  the  recommendation  of  the 
Council  was  endorsed,  and  it  wTas  resolved  to  grant  the  use 
of  the  synagogue  to  the  Union  under  the  following  condi- 
tions: 

1.  All  preachers  and  readers  shall  be  Jews. 

2.  Arrangements  shall  be  made  for  the  separation  of 
the  sexes  during  service. 

3.  In  the  course  of  the  service  the  Ark  shall  be  opened, 
a  Scroll  of  the  Law  shall  be  taken  out  and  elevated,  and  a 
portion  of  the  Law,  varied  from  week  to  week,  shall  be  read 
from  it  in  Hebrew. 

4.  No  hymn  or  psalm  shall  be  introduced  into  the  serv- 
ice of  which  the  words  have  not  been  composed  by  a  person 
of  the  Jewish  faith. 

5.  Modern  English  prayers  of  Jewish  authorship  may 
be  included  in  the  ritual  and  prayers  to  be  approved  by  the 
Council. 

6.  The  Sabbath  afternoon  Amidah  shall  be  included  in 
the  service,  and  a  portion  of  it  shall  be  read  each  week. 

7.  The  Hebrew  portion  of  the  service  shall  at  least  in- 
clude a  Qaddish  (to  be  read  once)  the     yot?,  the  prayer 
commencing  u^y  and  a  Psalm  or  Hymn. 

8.  Subject  to  the  foregoing  conditions  the  general  con- 
trol of  the  services  shall  be  left  in  the  control  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  Union. 

9.  The  ritual  of  the  Union  when  formulated  shall  be 


RECENT  DE\ELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  553 

submitted,  with  power  to  approve,  to  the  sub-committee  ap- 
pointed by  the  Council  to  meet  with  the  sub-committee  of 
the  Jewish  Religious  Union.  l 

These  conditions  were  in  part  subversive  of  the  princi- 
ples on  which  the  Union  rested.  The  Union,  by  having 
men  and  women  sit  together  at  its  services  declared  its 
opposition  to  the  traditional  Orientalism  of  the  synagogue 
in  the  matter  of  woman's  religious  position;  by  not  hav- 
ing the  Scroll  taken  from  the  Ark  and  elevating  it  with  the 
words,  *  *  this  is  the  law  which  Moses  placed  before  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,"  the  members  of  the  Union  indicated  their 
refusal  to  grant  the  Torah  a  more  important  place  in  the 
ritual  and  in  the  development  of  Jewish  thought  and  life 
than  any  other  portion  of  the  Bible.  Further,  the  Council 
of  the  Synagogue,  by  demanding  to  be  the  court  of  last  re- 
sort robbed  the  Union  of  its  character  of  an  independent 
movement.  There  is  little  cause  for  surprise,  then,  that 
the  members  of  the  Union,  at  a  meeting  held  April  5  at  the 
residence  of  the  president,  rejected  the  offer  of  the  syna- 
gogue made  with  such  conditions.  True,  the  committee  of 
the  Union  had  recommended  the  acceptance  of  the  offer, 
because  they  felt  that  the  great  advantage  accruing  from 
meeting  in  a  synagogue,  and  thus  becoming  identified  with 
the  Jewish  community  outweighed  all  other  considerations, 
and  further  that  it  was  quite  possible  that  in  time  the 
objectionable  conditions  might  gradually  be  done  away 
with.  The  President,  Claude  G.  Montefiore,  in  opening  the 
meeting,  before  advising  that  the  offer  be  rejected,  stated 
the  pros  in  favor  of  the  scheme.  If  they  accepted  the  offer, 
the  harsh  criticism  and  irritation  arising  from  the  opinion 
that  they  were  bringing  about  a  schism  would  be  ended. 
If  they  rejected  this  offer,  it  was  not  likely  that  they  would 
soon  receive  another  to  worship  in  a  synagogue,  and  the 
holding  of  the  service  in  a  synagogue  had  its  advantages. 
Further,  if  they  accepted  the  offer,  it  was  likely  that  some 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  April  3,  1903,  12. 


554  THE  BEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

of  the  conditions  would  be  relaxed,  notably  that  in  relation 
to  the  ministers  of  the  synagogue.  Still,  some  of  their 
members  thought  they  ought  not  to  be  allied  to  any  one 
particular  section  of  the  community,  for  in  that  case  they 
would  not  be  so  likely  to  draw  members  from  all  sections. 
Again,  their  liberties  might  be  restricted,  for  they  would 
be  largely  under  the  control  of  the  authorities  of  Berkeley 
Street.  If  by  going  to  Berkeley  Street  they  could  get  more 
preachers  it  would  be  worth  while;  but  it  was  altogether 
likely  that  there  would  be  more  difficulty  in  getting  men 
like  Singer  or  Emmanuel,  of  Birmingham,  to  preach  for 
them  in  Berkeley  Street  than  at  present.  Yet  the  only 
question  after  all  was  what  course  would  most  help  the 
Jews  and  Jewesses  who  do  not  attend  at  present  any  place 
of  worship.  To  attach  these  was  the  reason  why  the  Union 
was  started.  It  mattered  not  so  much  what  people  who 
attended  existing  synagogues  felt.  It  was  impossible  to 
satisfy  all.  But  if  they  rejected  the  scheme,  then  they  must 
put  forth  the  greatest  efforts  and  energy  to  make  the  move- 
ment successful,  for  it  then  stood  on  its  own  feet;  but  if 
they  had  not  this  energy,  then  it  would  be  better  to  dwindle 
and  die  within  the  synagogue  than  without. 

The  Rev.  Morris  Joseph  pleaded  earnestly  for  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  scheme  for  two  reasons :  first,  he  was 
anxious  that  his  synagogue  perform  an  act  of  religious 
liberality— yes  he  might,  say,  of  religious  justice;  that  his 
synagogue,  known  as  the  reform  synagogue,  should  justify 
its  title  by  associating  itself  directly  or  indirectly  with  a 
movement  which  sought  to  provide  for  the  religious  needs 
of  those  who  could  find  satisfaction  in  no  existing  syna- 
gogue ;  secondly,  he  was  anxious  that  the  Union  be  stamped 
as  Jewish  in  the  eyes  of  the  community.  The  members  of 
the  Union  might  not  think  this  important,  but  it  was ;  they 
were  a  section  of  Israel,  and  they  had  to  set  themselves 
right  with  the  community,  and  here  was  the  opportunity 
to  demonstrate  their  Jewishness.  The  concessions  de- 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  555 

maiided  by  the  Council  of  the  synagogue  were  not  so 
great;  although  the  sexes  were  to  be  separated,  still,  the 
ladies  were  not  to  be  relegated  to  the  gallery,  to  which  a 
stigma  of  inferiority  was  attached,  but  they  were  to  sit  on 
the  same  floor.  True,  more  Hebrew  was  demanded  in  the 
service,  but  they  already  had  some  Hebrew,  and  a  little 
more  would  not  signify,  notably  as  the  greater  portion  of 
the  service  would  continue  in  English.  As  for  the  reading 
from  the  Law,  after  all  the  Pentateuch  was  a  very  integral 
portion  of  Judaism.  The  Chairman,  in  his  book  on  "Lib- 
eral Judaism, ' ' x  had  said  that  the  Pentateuch  was  valu- 
able because  it  stood  for  law  and  obedience  to  law.  If  this 
were  so,  why  could  they  not  pay  respect  to  that  principle 
by  reading  from  the  Law  every  Sabbath?  He  warned 
them  lest,  by  rejecting  the  scheme,  they  give  color  to  the 
cry  that  they  were  desirous  of  causing  a  schism. 

The  scheme  was  rejected  by  a  large  majority.  The 
Union  continued  to  hold  its  services  independently  until 
the  end  of  June  of  that  year.  Its  pulpit  was  pre-eminently 
a  free  pulpit,  and  was  occupied  during  the  year  by  Claude 
G.  Montefiore,  the  Rev.  S.  Singer,  Harry  S.  Lewis,  Israel 
Abrahams,  Oswald  J.  Simon,  Philip  J.  Hartog,  the  Rev. 
Morris  Joseph,  the  Rev.  A.  Wolf,  Lionel  Jacob,  Alfred  L. 
Cohen,  and  Max  Herz. 2  The  revised  Prayer-Book  of  the 
Union 3  appeared  in  the  fall  of  1903.  Many  harsh  and 
severe  criticisms  had  been  leveled  at  the  first  service  book 
of  the  Union ;  some  of  these  criticisms  were  taken  note  of 
as  appeared  in  this  revised  edition,  which  not  even  the 
bitterest  opponent  could  stigmatize  as  un-Jewish— the 
favorite  charge  by  traditionalists  against  every  departure 

1 ' '  Liberal  Judaism, ' '  by  Claude  G.  Montefiore.     London,  1903. 

"'Jewish  Addresses  delivered  at  the  services  of  the  Jewish  Re- 
ligious Union  during  the  First  Session,  1902-3."  London  and  Edin- 
burgh, 1904. 

*"A  Selection  of  Prayers,  Psalms  and  other  Scriptural  Passages 
and  Hymns  for  use  at  the  services  of  the  Jewish  Religious  Union. ' ' 
London,  5664-1903. 


556  THE  EEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

from  tradition.  The  prayers  are  mostly  in  the  vernacular, 
the  Hebrew  portions  consist  of  mn,  with  its  response 
'  UU«,  UWl*"  dUW^Cl  CUUUli  'CUL  u  y»tf>  with  n3HN1  and  in 
the  Amidah  (which  was  not  in  this  first  edition)  B>np, 
U'WK  TtfKl  UTtfK  and  ntffi?  D^  ;  further,  a  few  sentences 
of  the  jw5  Km  Qaddish  and  the  Ten  Commandments.  A 
choice  selection  of  Scripture  verses,  psalms,  and  hymns  is 
appended. 

Doctrinally  the  Prayer-Book  is  like  the  most  advanced 
reform  Prayer-Books ;  all  petitions  for  a  return  to  Palestine, 
a  restoration  of  the  Jewish  state,  and  a  re-institution  of 
the  sacrificial  worship  are  excluded.  The  election  of  Israel, 
however,  is  expressed  time  and  again,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  universal  elements  of  Judaism  are  set  forth  in 
lofty  terms. 

A  number  of  sources  have  been  drawn  from  besides  the 
traditional  liturgy.  A  Sabbath  prayer  is  taken  from  the 
Order  of  Prayer  for  Sabbath  Afternoon  services  discussed 
above,  and  a  prayer  for  the  congregation  from  the  Sephardic 
Prayer-Book;  beautiful  liturgical  productions  of  Jehudah 
Halevi  are  included,  as  well  as  a  selection  from  the  Zohar; 
a  number  of  the  prayers  were  written  particularly  for  the 
services  of  the  Union.  The  book  breathes  devotion  and 
the  true  Jewish  spirit,  and  is  a  distinct  contribution  to  the 
liturgical  literature  of  the  synagogue. 

On  Saturday  afternoon,  October  17,  1903,  a  service  sim- 
ilar to  that  held  in  the  West  End  was  instituted  in  the 
East  End  of  London  by  the  East  End  Branch  of  the  Jew- 
ish Religious  Union,  whose  committee  had  been  constituted 
with  Harry  S.  Lewis  as  Chairman  and  Emanuel  Sternheim 
as  Secretary.  The  only  difference  between  this  service  and 
that  in  the  West  was  the  absence  of  instrumental  music. 
A.  Lindo  Henry  read  the  prayers,  and  Harry  S.  Lewis 
delivered  the  address  at  the  opening  service.  In  the  ad- 
dress the  speaker  dwelt  upon  the  necessity  of  a  service  like 
this  in  the  East  End  of  the  metropolis. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  557 

The  Union  has  continued  its  services  to  the  present ;  true, 
it  has  not  revolutionized  the  synagogue;  official  Judaism 
has  continued  as  it  was,  but  were  the  official  synagogue  to 
take  its  cue  from  the  action  of  the  Union  and  institute  abso- 
lutely needed  changes  in  the  ritual,  it  would  perform  the 
most  needed  service  for  the  present  and  coming  genera- 
tions. But  the  official  synagogue  is  enwrapped  in  the 
mantle  of  traditionalism,  and  in  its  allegiance  to  the  old 
forgets  its  duty  to  the  new;  yes,  reform  within  the  syna- 
gogue is  the  crying  need  in  England. 1  The  Jewish  Relig- 
ious Union  would  never  have  been  formed  had  the  eccle- 
siastical authorities  and  the  synagogal  officers  taken  cog- 
nizance of  the  alienation  of  thousands  of  Jews  from  the 
synagogue  and  instituted  steps  to  arrest  this  by  shaping 
the  public  expression  of  Judaism  according  to  the  spiritual 
needs  of  these  thousands. 

The  people  have  advanced  beyond  the  synagogue ;  Juda- 
ism is  of  their  lives  and  thoughts  a  thing  apart ;  Jews  they 
are  by  birth :  of  the  spiritual  message  of  Judaism  they  are 
either  ignorant,  or  to  it  they  are  indifferent.  From  out 
this  ignorance  and  indifference  they  will  be  startled  as  by 
a  trumpet  call  when  some  time  (and  if  the  official  author- 
ities are  wise,  not  very  far  hence)  the  synagogue  will  speak 
to  them  in  the  voice  of  their  generation,  and  Judaism,  re- 
casting its  age-old  truth  into  modern  shape,  will  be  as  liv- 

1 A  correspondent  to  the  Jewish  Chronicle,  March  3,  1905,  p.  20, 
writes:  "What  is  slowly  eating  at  the  very  vitals  of  Judaism 
is  our  materialism.  To  my  mind  one  great  cause  of  this  is  that  con- 
servative Judaism — or  what  passes  for  it — does  not  sufficiently  stimu- 
late the  spiritual  life  of  those  brought  up  in  an  English  atmosphere. 
Our  services,  historical  as  they  are.  are  out  of  sympathy  with 
modern  ideas,  and  are,  therefore,  gradually  losing  their  hold  upon 
the  younger  generation.  Will  not  our  religious  leaders  see  that, 
if  something  is  not  done,  and  done  soon,  to  revitalize  Judaism,  those 
who  belong  to  the  more  liberal  section  of  the  community  in  religious 
matters  will  slowly  drift  from  us  ?  "  See  also  ' t  The  Synagogue  for 
the  Rising  Generation;  an  appeal  for  Reform,"  ibid.,  Oct.  20,  1905, 
18,  Oct.  27,  18. 


558  THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

ing  an  issue  to  them  as  in  its  rabbinical  guise  it  was  to 
their  fathers.  "When  the  cloud  lifted,  the  children  of 
Israel  went  forward ; "  so  has  it  always  been,  so  shall  it  be 
again.  The  cloud  of  benumbing  conservatism  shall  lift, 
even  in  England,  and  from  the  four  winds  will  come  the 
spirit  and  breathe  upon  the  dry  bones  of  the  house  of 
Israel,  and  they  shall  live. 

The  surface  of  the  waters  is  being  stirred  similarly  in 
France.  In  this  land  reform  has  made  but  slight  headway ; 
the  accepted  official  interpretation  of  Judaism  is  the  rab- 
binical as  codified  in  the  Shulchan  Anik.  Of  reform  such 
as  was  theoretically  advocated  in  Germany  and  has  been 
practically  carried  out  in  the  United  States,  there  has  been 
little.  True,  there  has  been  preaching  in  the  vernacular 
since  1.831,  the  organ  has  been  in  general  use  in  the  syna- 
gogues for  a  long  time,  and  confirmation  of  the  young  peo- 
ple of  both  sexes  has  been  in  vogue  since  1841.  In  1856 
the  grand  rabbi  of  France,  Salomon  Ubnann,  called  a  meet- 
ing of  the  grand  rabbis  of  the  various  consistories  to  be 
held  at  Paris.  The  Synod,  as  it  was  called,  considered  the 
state  of  Judaism  in  France ;  a  number  of  moderate  reforms 
of  the  ritual  were  recommended,  but  it  was  left  to  each 
grand  rabbi  to  use  his  own  judgment  in  carrying  out  or  dis- 
regarding these  recommendations  in  his  own  consistory. 
The  reforms  in  the  ritual  have  been  slight;  piyyutim  have 
been  eliminated  from  all  services  excepting  New  Year's 
Day  and  the  Day  of  Atonement;  on  these  two  days,  too, 
the  piyyutim  have  been  considerably  reduced.  The  Long 
prayer  Dim  Kim  read  at  the  morning  service  on  Mondays 
and  Thursdays,  the  section  pP^E  HE2,  the  "iirpn  T&?,  the 
IP115  G1P'  and  the  nn»T  D'JttK  have  been  eliminated.  But 
there  have  been  no  changes  other  than  these.  The  entire 
service  is  in  Hebrew,  with  the  exception  of  the  prayer 
for  the  government,  which  is  spoken  in  the  vernacular. 
Likewise  in  communities  which  have  a  rabbi  the  prayer 
5V  Uin  spoken  at  the  taking  of  the  Scroll  from  the 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUBOPE  559 


Ark  and  the  "pat?  ^o  read  before  the  Scroll  is  returned  to 
the  Ark  are  replaced  by  paraphrases  in  the  vernacular.  l 
At  the  initiative  of  Zadoc  Kahn,  the  late  grand  rabbi,  a 
French  prayer  was  introduced  before  the  Qaddish  at  the 
service  on  Sabbath  eve,  and  another  prayer  likewise  in 
French  on  Sabbath  morning  when  the  Law  is  taken  from 
the  Ark.  There  have  been,  however,  no  changes  in  the 
doctrines  of  the  old  Prayer-Book  ;  here  reform  is  unknown. 

But  the  same  conditions  exist  in  France  as  in  Germany, 
England  and  the  United  States;  the  Sabbath  is  not  ob- 
served ;  the  synagogues  are  sparsely  attended  on  Sabbath 
morn;  many  hear  no  word  of  religious  instruction.  To 
meet  this  condition  Zadoc  Kahn  instituted  a  service  with 
sermon  on  Sabbath  afternoons.2  In  1896  a  movement  for 
Sunday  service  was  started;  it  was  suppressed.  To  meet 
the  need,  addresses  on  religious  subjects  were  given  for  a 
short  time  on  Sunday  morning—  not  in  the  synagogue  how- 
ever, but  in  the  congregational  meeting-room,  so  as  to  divest 
them  altogether  of  the  character  of  divine  services.3 

During  the  past  few  years,  viz.,  since  1900,  active  propa- 
ganda for  reform  are  being  made  by  an  association  calling 
itself  "  Union  Israelite  Liberate."  In  1903  it  set  about 
collecting  funds  for  the  erection  of  a  "  Temple  Liberal." 
At  this  time  it  promulgated  the  following  program  : 

1.  A  service  of  one  hour's  duration  to  include  a  sermon, 
shall  be  held   every  Saturday  and  Sunday  morning  from 
ten  to  eleven  o'clock. 

2.  The   principal   Hebrew   prayers    (for   example,   the 
Shemang  and  the  Qedushah)  shall  be  retained;  the  others 
shall  be  read  in  French. 

3.  The  religious  instruction  of  children  preparing  for 
confirmation   shall   be  completely   modified.     They  are   to 

1  '  '  Jews  in  France,  "  by  S.  Debre,  Jewish  Quarterly  Eeview,  III, 
417  ff. 

2  A.  Z.  d.  J.,  1884,  769. 

8  Ibid.,  1896,  May  22,  Supplement,  p.  4. 


560  THE  BEFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

be  taught  that  which  will  best  enable  them  to  understand 
the  beauty  and  grandeur  of  the  love  of  God,  and  the  rea- 
sons which  should  cause  them  to  be  proud  of  professing 
the  Jewish  faith.  .  .  . 

7.  Ladies  as  well  as  gentlemen  shall  be  permitted  to 
sing  during  the  services. 

8.  As   in   our  country,   males  uncover   as   a  mark   of 
respect,  this  practice  shall  be  observed  in  our  Temple.  1 

This  agitation  for  the  establishment  of  a  reform  temple 
received  a  great  impetus  when  the  bill  providing  for  the 
separation  of  church  and  state  in  France  was  passed  by  the 
legislature  in  1905.  As  with  the  other  religious  denomina- 
tions, so  also  with  the  Jews,  this  bill  entails  a  complete 
revolution  in  the  administration  of  religious  affairs.  In  no 
country  in  Europe  was  the  union  of  church  and  state  closer 
than  in  France — not  in  the  sense  that  there  was  one  estab- 
lished state  church,  but  that  all  the  churches  received 
governmental  support,  and  hence  were  in  part  subsidiary 
to  the  government.  French  Judaism,  with  its  elaborate 
consist orial  organization,  was  officially  represented  by  the 
grand  rabbi  of  France,  who  as  well  as  all  other  rabbis,  was 
paid  his  salary  from  the  governmental  treasury.  The  new 
law  changes  all  this,  and  Judaism  in  France,  as  is  the  case 
in  other  countries,  becomes  now  a  concern  of  the  Jews  only, 
who  will  have  to  support  their  own  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tions. The  complete  transformation  in  administration  in- 
volved in  the  new  order  of  things  will  undoubtedly  call 
forth  greater  energy  on  the  part  of  the  French  Jews,  since 
they  are  made  to  rely  now  entirely  upon  themselves,  the 
governmental  prop  being  withdrawn.  The  advocates  of 
reform  seem  to  consider  this  an  especially  auspicious  time 
for  the  definite  carrying  out  of  their  plans.  Now  that  the 
congregants  themselves  will  have  to  provide  the  means  for 
the  sustaining  of  the  institutions  of  worship,  they  will  make 
more  insistent  demands  for  a  directing  voice  in  the  reli°r- 

1  Jewish  Chronicle,  Oct.  20,  1903,  20. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  561 

ious  and  congregational  policy,  and  will  take  a  livelier 
interest  in  congregational  affairs.  The  passing  of  ''official" 
Judaism  will  give  such  scope  to  independence  of  thought 
and  originality  of  action  as  has  not  been  known  in  French 
Judaism  since  the  dead  weight  of  governmental  paternal- 
ism has  rested  upon  it.  The  manifesto  issued  by  the 
Liberal  Union  in  consequence  of  the  act  of  separation  of 
Church  and  State  so  clearly  indicates  the  freer  spirit  that 
breathes  through  French  Judaism  at  this  time,  that  no 
words  can  make  this  clearer  than  the  terms  of  the  docu- 
ment itself,  which  runs  as  follows: 

"A  certain  number  of  Parisian  Jews  firmly  attached  to 
the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Jewish  religion,  but  per- 
suaded of  the  necessity  of  placing  the  external  forms  of 
worship  and  the  methods  of  religious  instruction  in  more 
complete  harmony  with  modern  conditions  of  existence, 
knowledge  and  conscience,  have  conceived  the  project  of 
constituting  a  group  of  the  large  Parisian  community  about 
to  be  reorganized  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  sepa- 
ration of  church  and  state.  There  is  no  intention  of  pro- 
voking a  secession  or  schism.  All  that  we  are  ambitious  of 
doing  is  to  be  enabled  to  hold  our  services  and  instruct  our 
children  according  to  our  own  ideas,  and  we  ask  to  do  this 
in  one  of  the  existing  synagogues  in  order  to  demonstrate 
our  strong  desire  to  remain  in  communion  with  the  co- 
religionists in  thought,  administration  and  communal 
charges.  These  are  the  general  principles  which  we  pro- 
pose to  apply  in  the  realization  of  our  reform: 

"1.  Besides  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  to  institute  a  service 
on  Sunday  morning,  to  give  to  those  who  are  not  free  on 
Saturday  opportunities  of  instruction  and  edification. 

"2.  To  reduce  the  length  of  this  service  to  one  hour,  with 
the  prayers  for  the  most  part  in  French  and  a  sermon  on 
each  occasion ;  the  latter  might,  on  certain  days,  subject  to 
the  control  of  the  executive  committee,  be  entrusted  to  lay 
speakers  conformably  to  an  old  Jewish  tradition  which 
deserves  to  be  restored. 
36 


562  THE  REFOBM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

"3.  To  make  religious  instruction  more  thorough  and 
better  adapted  to  the  assured  results  of  modern  criticism, 
which  has  done  nothing  but  enhance  the  grandeur  and 
originality  of  the  religious  progress  from  which  Judaism 
emanated. 

"4.  To  leave  to  all  full  liberty  to  follow  the  traditional 
practices  and  ceremonies,  it  being  clearly  understood  that 
they  may  not  eclipse  nor  replace  the  essentials  of  religion 
which  consist  in  the  communion  of  public  worship  and  in 
the  intensity  of  moral  individual  belief. 

"In  a  word,  we  are  pursuing  a  task,  not  of  separation  and 
revolution,  but  of  spiritual  renovation,  which  will  be  of 
such  a  nature,  if  it  is  rightly  understood,  as  to  give  to  Juda- 
ism new  youth  and  vigor,  better  to  assume  its  character  as 
doctrine  eternally  based  on  truth  and  moral  strength,  and 
finally  to  assure  to  it  even  from  without  valuable  sympathy. 
The  spirit,  and  not  the  letter;  truth  and  life— that  is  our 
motto." 

One  of  the  leading  spirits  in  this  movement  is  Theodore 
Reinach,  the  well-known  author  and  member  of  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies.  The  reformers  have  recently  preferred  a 
request  to  the  central  consistory  for  a  hall  in  one  of  the 
temples  in  which  to  conduct  a  service  on  Sunday  morning. 
This  request  has  as  yet  elicited  no  response  (February, 
1907).  If  the  request  is  granted,  the  reformers  will  form  a 
section  of  the  main  congregation ;  if  it  is  refused,  it  is  prob- 
able that  they  will  organize  themselves  into  an  ' '  association 
cultuelle"  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  1905.  The  only 
rabbi  who  has  declared  his  adherence  to  this  reform  move- 
ment is  Louis  Germain-Levy,  of  Dijon.1 

The  attempt  has  been  made  in  these  pages  to  give  a  sur- 
vey of  the  currents  and  cross-currents  in  Jewish  religious 
thought  during  the  modern  period,  notably  as  these  have 

1  Several  years  ago  this  rabbi  gave  expression  to  his  liberal  stand- 
point in  the  essay  ' '  Une  Religion  Eationelle  et  Laique.  La  Eeligion 
du  XXe  Siecle. ' '  Dijon,  1904. 


RECENT  DEVELOPMENTS  IN  EUROPE  563 

become  realized  in  church  organization  and  public  corporate 
expression.  It  has  been  impossible  to  even  indicate  the 
many  individual  expressions  and  analyses  of  liberal  tend- 
encies as  they  have  appeared  in  literature.  Not  alone  in 
Germany,  England,  and  the  United  States  has  the  liberal 
movement  been  widely  reflected  in  press  and  book,  but 
even  in  Russia,  supposably  the  land  of  orthodoxy  par  ex- 
cellence, have  there  been  and  are  there  individual  writers, 
like  Leon  Gordon,  M.  L.  Lilienblum,  R.  A.  Erodes  *  and 
others,  who  have  given  voice  to  views  similar  to  those  where- 
of the  reform  movement  is  the  recognized  exponent.  But 
in  Russia  there  has  been  no  organized  effort  to  break  away 
from  the  rabbinical  interpretation  of  Judaism  as  repre- 
sented by  the  official  synagogue,  2  and  in  this  history  only 
such  organized  effort  has  been  taken  account  of. 

It  is  almost  one  hundred  years  since  the  first  public 
demonstration  in  the  cause  of  Jewish  reform  was  made  in 
the  dedication  of  the  synagogue  in  Westphalia  by  Israel 
Jacobson.  During  this  century,  the  most  significant  in  the 
history  of  Jewish  thought  since  the  dispersion  from  Pales- 
tine, values  have  been  readjusted,  and  Judaism  has  adapted 
itself  to  new  environments  in  the  various  free  countries  of 
the  world.  The  story  of  the  reform  movement  is  the  record 
of  this  readjustment  and  this  adaptation.  The  essentials 

1  These  men  lifted  the  banner  of  revolt  against  the  Shulchan  Aruk 
and  advocated  reform.  Lilienblum,  in  his  "Orchot  ha-Talmud" 
(By-Paths  of  the  Talmud  which  appeared  in  the  periodical  ha-Melitz, 
in  1868),  claimed  that  in  the  Talmud  advanced  ideas  are  given  expres- 
sion to,  therefore  the  present  generation  is  justified  in  adapting  the 
religion  to  the  spirit  of  the  time.  Erodes,  in  his  Ha-Dat  ive-ha- 
Chayim  (Religion  and  Life),  presented  a  vivid  picture  of  the  conflict 
between  orthodox  and  reformers.  This  is  also  the  theme  of  the 
powerful  story,  Heir  Esofowicz,  by  Elise  Orzeszko. 

3  The  Haskalah  movement  in  Russia  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
although  similar  to  the  Meass'fim  movement  in  Germany  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  in  that  it  familiarized  the  Jews  with  modern 
culture  and  literature,  yet  did  not  develop  into  an  organized  effort  for 
religious  reform,  as  proved  the  case  in  Germany. 


564  THE  KEFOEM  MOVEMENT  IN  JUDAISM 

as  they  appear  in  prophetic  thought  remain  unchanged,  it 
is  only  the  interpretation  and  expression  of  these  essentials 
as  demanded  by  the  changed  conceptions  of  modern  life 
that  are  different  from  past  interpretation  and  expression. 
The  work  of  the  reform  movement  has  been,  in  a  word,  to 
substitute  for  the  nationalistic,  legalistic,  and  ceremonial 
form  of  Judaism— the  product  of  the  ages  of  exclusion, 
repression,  and  the  ghetto— the  universal  and  spiritual 
teachings  that  accentuate  Judaism's  message  of  ethical 
monotheism.  The  modern  spirit  touched  Judaism,  and  the 
reform  movement  sprang  forth.  Reform  Judaism  bridges 
antiquity  and  modernity,  garbing  the  eternal  verities  that 
root  in  the  origins  of  the  faith  in  the  raiment  of  these 
latter  days.  It  proclaims  the  great  truths  that  God's 
revelation  is  progressive,  and  that  Judaism  has  in  itself 
the  power  of  adaptation  to  bring  this  revelation  to  success- 
ive ages. 

We  are  too  near  the  period  of  the  beginnings  of  reform 
to  be  able  to  deduce  results;  but  this  much  may  surely  be 
said,  the  reform  movement  in  Judaism  is  part  and  parcel 
of  that  great  change  of  front  in  the  religious  thought  of 
mankind  that  modernity  symbolizes;  part,  too,  of  the 
broader  and  freer  outlook  that  came  with  the  passing  of 
mediaevalism ;  and  as  these  broader  and  freer  forces  move 
majestically  forward,  there  will  keep  pace  therewith  the 
liberal  religious  spirit,  leading  men  at  last  to  God's  holy 
hill  and  His  tabernacle.1 

1  Ps.  xliii.  3. 


INDEX 


Aaronic  priesthood,  Eeform  Ju- 
daism 's  interpretation  of, 
8,  352,  489. 

Abarbanei,  208. 

Abrahams,  Israel,  540,  549,  555. 

Adler,  Abraham,  59,  202,  219, 
231,  261,  273,  274,  277,  314, 
343,  346;  on  Sabbath  ob- 
servance, 219;  defense  of 
Brunswick  Conference,  230 
n.;  on  Messianic  question 
251;  on  abolition  of  Auf- 
rufen,  257;  on  equality  of 
woman  with  man,  258;  on 
Sabbath  question,  286. 

Adler,  Hermann,  127  n.,  540,  541, 
542,  546,  548,  549,  550,  551. 

Adler,  L.,  85,  184,  404,  406,  411, 
424,  434,  453. 

Adler,  Nathan  Marcus,  143,  184; 
on  circumcision,  186;  protest 
against  Brunswick  Confer- 
ence, 228. 

Adler,  Samuel,  59,  202,  219,  231, 
261,  273,  277,  281,  297  n., 
304,  305,  314,  475,  483;  on 
reform,  206;  on  intermar- 
riage, 212;  on  prayer,  237; 
on  vernacular  as  language 
of  prayer,  237;  on  position 
of  woman,  260;  on  Sabbath 
question,  286;  on  Sunday 
service,  297-8;  on  worship 
with  uncovered  head,  350  n. ; 
freedom  is  the  Messiah,  483. 

Albany,  New  York,  reforms  in, 
469,  470. 


Alexius,  Frederick  Christian, 
Duke  of  Anhalt,  104. 

Angelology  in  Judaism,  of  Per- 
sian origin,  4. 

Anti-Semitism,  German  rabbis 
on,  516-8. 

Aqiba,  Eabbi,  99,  439. 

Arad,  Hungary,  reform  in,  387  ff. 

/rnhold,  A.,  on  circumcision, 
305,  306n. 

Aron,  Arnaud,  107. 

Astruc,  E.  A.,  410,  423;  on  unity 
in  Judaism,  413. 

Aub,  H.,  184. 

Aub,  Joseph,  59,  85,  98,  112, 
199,  404,  406,  411,  415,  430, 
434;  on  organ  in  the  syna- 
gogue, 258  n.;  on  creed, 
425;  on  Union  Prayer-Book, 
425  n.;  on  tisha  beab,  440; 
on  progress  in  religion,  443. 

Auerbach,  B.  H.,  184,  228. 

Auerbach,  Isaac,  33. 

Auerbach,  Jacob,  231,  263,  273, 
274,  434;  on  significance  of 
Hebrew,  242;  on  Hebrew  in 
service,  243;  on  Messianic 
question,  252;  on  Sabbath 
question,  284,  291. 

Auerbach,  J.  L.,  50,  112,  321. 

Augsburg  Synod,  340  n.,  432  ff.; 
on  marriage  reforms,  435 
ff.;  on  Sabbath  observance, 
447  ff.;  on  circumcision, 
449;  on  proselyte  bath,  450; 
on  celebration  of  Channu- 
kah,  451. 


565 


566 


INDEX 


Babylon,  Influence  on  Judaism,  3. 

Bachya,  ibn  Paquda,  99. 

Ballagi,  Prof.,  379. 

Baltz,  Fr.,  Th.  260. 

Bamberger,  J.,  185,  228. 

Bamberger,  S.  B.,  184;  protests 
against  Brunswick  Confer- 
ence, 228;  opposes  political 
emancipation,  317  n.;  con- 
troversy with  S.  B.  Hirsch, 
515  n. 

Same  Madliqin,  abolition  of,  53, 
136,  558. 

Bar  Mitzwdh,  ceremony,  reform 
of,  509,  533. 

Barnet,  A.  L.,  139. 

Bauer,  Bruno,  173. 

Bauer,  Marcus,  379. 

Bavaria,  reform  in,  104. 

Beer,  Jacob  Herz,  33,  38,  42, 
320. 

Behr,  Alexander,  191  n. 

Bendavid,  Lazarus,  18. 

Benedikt,  Markus,  attacks  Saul 
Berlin's  book,  12  n.;  con- 
demns reform  movement,  49. 

Bene  Israel  congregation,  Cin- 
cinnati, 470. 

Bene  Yeshurun  congregation, 
Cincinnati,  470. 

Ben  Israel,  202,  273,  404. 

Berkowitz,  H.,  502. 

Berlin,  Early  Eeforms  in,  31  ff. 

Berlin  Eef orm  Congregation, 
317  ff.;  address  to  the 
Frankfort  Conference,  263, 
342;  address  to  the  Breslau 
Conference,  297  n.,  345;  ap- 
peal to  the  Jews  of  Ger- 
many, 326-9;  call  for  synod, 
329;  prayer-book  of,  356, 
365. 

Berlin,  Saul,  11  n. 


Berliner,  A.,  258  n. 

Besamim  Bosh,  collection  of  re- 
sponses advocating  reforms, 
12  n. 

Bernays,  Isaac,  34,  110,  111,  116, 
119. 

Bernstein,  A.  (see  under  Eeben- 
stein). 

Biblical  criticism  in  religious 
schools,  421-2. 

Bing,  Abraham,  191  n. 

Bloch,  M.,  199. 

Bloch,  Moritz,  379. 

Bodenheimer,  L.,  202,  207,  215, 
218. 

Bondi,  Joseph,  411. 

Brach,  E.,   410. 

Bradford  Eeform  Congregation, 
145. 

Breslau  Eabbinical  Conference, 
272  ff.;  on  Sabbath  observ- 
ance, 300-1;  on  observance 
of  second  day  of  holidays, 
302-3;  sanctions  blowing  of 
shofar  and  use  of  four 
fruits  on  Sabbath,  303;  on 
circumcision,  305-6;  on  re- 
forms in  mourning  customs, 
306-7;  criticisms  of,  311  ff. 

Breslau  Eabbinical  Seminary, 
271,  310. 

Breslau  Eeformers,  369  ff.;  ad- 
dress to  Frankfort  Confer- 
ence, 266. 

Bresselau,  M.  J.,  46,  109. 

Bressler,  Dr.,  340,   362. 

Erodes,  E.   A.,   563. 

Bruck,  Moses,  386  n. 

Brunswick  Eabbinical  Confer- 
ence, 176,  194,  202  ff.;  on 
intermarriage,  212;  on  po- 
litical creed  of  the  modern 
Jew,  212  ff.;  on  oath  more 


INDEX 


567 


JudaicOj  216 ;  abrogated 
Icol  nidre  prayer,  217;  on 
circumcision,  218 ;  on  Sab- 
bath observance,  219;  criti- 
cisms of,  220  ff. 

Cantors,   Education  of,   450. 

Cardozo,  I.  N.,  464. 

Carvalho,  D.  N.,  463. 

Cassel,  A.,  404. 

Cassel    Jewish    school,    19,    21; 
rabbinical    conference,    404. 

Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis,  492  ff.;  on  Sabbath 
question,  283  n.,  505  ff.; 
New  Year's  service,  350; 
on  authority  of  Talmud, 
494 ;  reform  standpoint, 
496 ;  denounces  Zionism, 
496-7;  on  mission  of  Juda- 
ism, 497;  on  Prayer-Book, 
497  ff. ;  on  circumcision  of 
proselytes,  502;  on  Sunday 
service,  507;  on  cremation, 
533  n. 

Ceremonies,  Eef orm  Judaism 's 
interpretation,  6,  7,  13,  473; 
rabbinical  Judaism  's  inter- 
pretation, 6,  7 ;  Geiger  on,  74. 

Chalitzah,  72,  308,  444,  458,  490  n., 
534. 

Channulcah,  Celebration  of,   451. 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  reform  in,  461  ff . 

Chasdai,  208. 

Cheder,  reform  of,  17,  123,  149 
380. 

Chicago,  reform  in,  471. 

Children's  services,  525. 

Chorin,  Aaron,  85,  388;  justifies 
reform  from  Talmudical 
standpoint,  47;  on  necessity 
of  reform,  47  n.;  urges  call- 
ing of  synod,  87;  on  trans- 


itoriness  of  ceremonies,  87; 
on  Talmud,  88;  on  worship 
with  uncovered  head,  350  n. 

Christianity,  and  Judaism,  4; 
conversions  to,  15,  516. 

Chuqqath   Hagoyim,   351,    528. 

Cincinnati,  reform  in,  470. 

Circumcision,  163,  181  ff.;  at 
Brunswick  Conference,  218, 
387;  at  Frankfort  Confer- 
ence, 260;  at  Breslau  Con- 
ference, 305;  at  Leipzig 
Synod,  428;  at  Augsburg 
Synod,  449;  at  Philadelphia 
Conference,  500;  at  Pitts- 
burg  Conference,  501;  of 
proselytes,  502. 

Clergy  and  laity,  distinction  un- 
Jewish,  238,  274,  344,  400. 

Cleveland  Rabbinical  Conference 
(1885),  488. 

Coblentz,  F.,  240  n. 

Cohen,  A.  L.,  555. 

Cohen,  E.  P.,  464. 

Cohn,  H.  M.,  512  n. 

Cohn,  J.,  404. 

Cohn,  T.,  404,  411. 

Cologne,  conflict  in  congregation, 
526. 

Conferences,  Rabbinical,  197  ff. ; 
at  Wiesbaden,  199  ff.;  at 
Brunswick,  202  ff . ;  at  Frank- 
fort, 231  ff.;  at  Breslau, 
272  ff.;  at  Cassel,  404;  at 
Cleveland,  488;  at  Phila- 
delphia, 488;  at  Cincinnati 
(1871)  491;  at  Pittsburg, 
491;  Central  Conference  of 
American  Rabbis,  492  ff.j 
of  German  rabbis  (1884), 
516;  of  liberal  rabbis  of 
Germany,  532. 


568 


INDEX 


Confirmation,  53,   105,   145,   153, 

386  n.;  469,  509,  558. 
Congress,   Hungarian  Jewish,  395. 
Council  of  Jewish  Women,  509  n. 
Creed,    Jewish,    207-11;    revised 

by  Charleston  reformers,  464. 
Creizenach,  M.,  150. 
Creizenach,  T.,  178  n. 
Cremation    from    standpoint    of 

Judaism,  533. 
Cremieux,  A.,  216. 
Cultur  Verein  (Berlin,  1841), 

321. 

Dahlberg,  Karl  von,  147. 
Denmark,  reforms  in,  42. 
Derenbourg,  J.,  76  n. 
Davis,  Felix,  551. 
DeSola,  D.  A.,  126. 
Dessau,  Jewish  school,  18. 
Deutsch,  D.,  228  n. 
Deutsch,  G.,  350  n.,  506. 
Dietary,  laws,    reform    of,    267, 

387,  491. 

Divorce   legislation,    445,   490   n. 
Dogmas  in  Judaism,  209,  362. 

.Education,  modern,  among  Jews, 
14,  123,  380;  religious,  419 
ff.,  473,  521. 

Eger,  Solomon,  81,  85. 

Ehrlich,  E.,  381. 

Einhorn,  David,  59,  85,  168,  170, 
231,  261,  273,  297  n.,  304, 
393-4,  475,  479;  on  reform, 
61,  393;  on  authority  of 
Talmud,  96;  on  ceremonies, 
97;  on  circumcision,  191  n. ; 
prayer-book  of,  233  n.,  498; 
on  Hebrew  in  service,  237; 
on  vernacular  as  language 
of  prayer,  237,  243;  on 
Messianic  question,  247,  331 


ii.;  loss  of  Jewish  political 
independence  not  a  misfor- 
tune but  beginning  of  larger 
work  of  Judaism  in  the 
world,  248;  on  Talmud,  248, 
394;  the  synagogue  is  as 
holy  as  the  temple  of  old, 
259;  Sabbath  a  symbol,  290, 
479;  on  position  of  woman, 
309-10,  353;  New  Year's 
service,  350;  on  tradition, 
394;  on  decalogue,  479;  on 
necessity  for  reform,  480; 
on  essence  of  Judaism,  482. 

Einhorn,  I.,  381,  386,  387,  393. 

Elia  del  Medigo,  99. 

Elzas,  B.  A.,  461  n.,  464  n.,  467  n. 

Emancipation  of  Jews,  linguis- 
tic, 9;  educational,  9,  123, 
149;  civil,  9,  32,  124  ff.,  149, 
331  n.;  in  France,  9,  26;  in 
Prussia,  31;  in  England, 
124-5;  in  Hungary,  381-2. 

Emanuel  congregation,  New 
York,  468,  469,  488. 

Enelow,  H.  G.,  334  n.,  506,  507. 

Engel,  M.,  410,  412,  428. 

England,  reform  in,  122  ff.,  537  ff. 

Englebert,   H.,  404. 

Erfurt,  synod  of,  334. 

Erube  Chatzerot,  280  n.,  301. 

Erube  T'chumin,  279  n.,  301. 

Ettlinger,  J.  A.,  168,  184,  186, 
228,  341. 

Euchel,  Isaac,  10  n. 

Excommunication,  Edict  of,  10, 
141. 

EzeJiu  M'qoman,  abolition  of, 
53,  136. 

Family   Pews,    355,   509. 
Fassel,  H.,  85  n. 


INDEX 


569 


Feigl,  G.,  410. 

Felsenthal,  B.,  475,  484;  on  dog- 
mas in  Judaism,  209  n. ;  on 
necessity  for  reform,  471; 
on  eternal  and  transitory 
elements  in  Judaism,  484; 
on  proselytes,  501-2. 

Festival  of  the  Jewish  Reforma- 
tion, 21. 

Fleckeles,  Eleazar,  14. 

Formstecher,  S.,  202,  231,  263, 
273,  404;  on  formulation  of 
principles,  208;  on  Hebrew 
in  service,  238;  on  Messi- 
anic question,  254;  on  ab- 
olition of  prayers  for  re-in- 
stitution of  sacrifices,  255; 
on  Sabbath  question,  290; 
on  Sabbath  observance  asso- 
ciations, 292;  Sunday  serv- 
ice, 299  n.;  advocates  synod, 
401. 

France,  Emancipation  of  Jews 
in,  9,  26;  reform  in,  30,  54, 
558  ff. 

Frankel,  David,  21. 

Frankel,  David  Hirschl,  23. 

Frankel,  J.,  310. 

Frankel,  M.,  109,  110,  112,  115. 

Frankel,  S.  J.,  46. 

Frankel,  Zacharias,  119,  120, 
170,  231,  273,  383;  on  Mes- 
siah, 119;  on  return  to  Pel- 
estine,  119;  on  circumcision, 
190  n.;  criticism  of  Bruns- 
wick Conference,  221;  on  re- 
form, 234;  standpoint  of, 
positive  historical  Judaism, 
234,  273;  on  necessity  of 
principle,  234;  on  science 
of  Judaism,  234;  on  Hebrew 
in  service,  235,  238,  240; 
withdrawal  from  Frankfort 


Conference,  268  ff.;  and 
Berlin  rabbinical  position, 
319. 

Frankfort  on  the  Main,  Jewish 
school,  19;  Jews  of,  147  ff.; 

Frankfort  Society  of  the  Friends 
of  Reform,  160  ff. ;  rabbinical 
conference,  231  ff.;  synod 
of,  334;  recent  reforms,  532. 

Frankfort  Rabbinical  Confer- 
ence, 231  ff.;  on  Hebrew  in 
service,  238,  244;  on  Mes- 
sianic question,  246  ff.;  on 
abolition  of  prayers  for  the 
reinstitution  of  the  sacri- 
fices, 255  ff.;  on  Aufrufen, 
258;  on  organ  in  the  syna- 
gogue, 259;  on  Sabbath 
question,  261 ;  spirit  of,  267 ; 
answer  to  Frankel  'a  letter 
of  withdrawal,  268;  charac- 
'  ter  of,  272. 

Frankfurter,  N.,  109,  112,  202, 
211,  343;  Jews  a  religious 
community,  213. 

Franklin,  L.  M.,  507. 

Frederick  William  III.  of  Prus- 
sia and  the  Jews,  31. 

Freund,  Samuel,  229. 

Freund,  William,  372  ff. 

Friday  evening  services,  503, 
504  n.,  523,  542. 

Friedlander,  David,  letter  to 
Teller,  15-18;  on  German 
prayers,  15;  founder  of 
Jewish  Free  School,  18;  on 
reforms,  21;  on  reform  of 
liturgy,  32. 

Friedlander,  J.  A.,  52  ff.,  85, 
86,  112,  199 ;  reforms  of,  52 ; 
on  necessity  for  reform,  54; 
on  authority  of  Talmud,  86; 


570 


INDEX 


on    justification   for   reform, 

86. 

Friedlander,  M.,  398  n. 
Friedlander,  Michael,  10  n. 
Fiirst,  J.,  411,  428,  434. 
Fiirst,  S.,  185. 
Furtado,  A.,  28. 

Gans,  Eduard,  38. 

Gaster,  M.,  123  n.,  125  n.,  128  n., 
129  n. 

Geiger,  Abraham,  59,  64  ff.,  72 
ff.,  112,  161,  168,  188,  202, 
218,  219,  231,  261,  263,  273, 
274,  277,  314,  343,  346,  371, 
375,  383,  404,  406,  411,  412, 
418,  423,  424,  434,  447,  458, 
512;  on  development  in 
Judaism,  16,  68,  76;  on  re- 
form, 26,  60,  67,  73,  418; 
and  science  of  Judaism,  41, 
66;  criticism  of  Hamburg 
Temple  Prayer-Book,  46 ; 
attacks  on,  72  ff.,  373,  374, 
376;  on  ceremonies,  74,  333 
n.;  on  rabbinical  functions, 
79,  369,  371  n.;  on  circum- 
cision, 189,  192,  192  n.;  on 
rabbinical  conference,  197, 
231  n.;  on  Hebrew  in  the 
service,  235,  239;  on  ver- 
nacular as  language  of 
prayer,  235,  239;  Jews  not 
a  nation,  240;  on  Messianic 
question,  246,  331  n.;  on 
organ  in  the  synagogue, 
258  n.;  on  Sabbath  question, 
261,  276  n.,  282,  284,  286, 
290,  447;  opening  address 
at  Breslau  Conference,  274; 
defends  Breslau  Conference, 
313  ff.;  on  Sunday  service, 
313;  on  importance  of  rab- 


binical conferences,  315 ;  and 
Berlin  Reform  Congregation, 
343,  344  n.,  345,  371,  377; 
on  position  of  woman,  354 
n. ;  and  Breslau  "Friends 
of  Reform"  371;  prayer- 
book  of,  378;  on  synod,  404, 
405  n. ;  on  progress  in  re- 
ligion, 415  n. ;  on  Union 
Catechism,  421;  on  mar- 
riage ceremony,  436;  on 
rights  of  the  individual, 
438;  on  intermarriage,  446. 

Geiger,  Ludwig,  526  n. 

Germain-Levy,   L.,   562. 

Germany,  the  birthplace  of  the 
reform  movement,  10. 

Gershom,   Rabbenu,  93  n. 

Ghetto,  effect  of,  5. 

Goldschmidt,  A.  M.,  402  n.,  404, 
411,  434. 

Goldsmid,  Francis  H.,  136,  141. 

Goldsmith,  Morris,  463. 

Gordon,  Leon,  563. 

Gosen,  J.,   232,   257,  273,   286. 

Gottheil,  G.,  410,  415,  502. 

Government  Interference  in  Jew- 
ish religious  affairs,  34,  47, 
52,  101,  104,  110  n.,  155, 
183. 

Graetz,  H.,  on  synod,  410  n. 

Grant,  Robert,  125. 

Greek  influence  on  Judaism,  4. 

Green,  A.  A.,  545,  548. 

Greenberg,  L.  J.,  541  n.,  551. 

Gries,  M.  J.,  507. 

Grimebaum,  E.,  85,  185,  199,  434. 

Giildenstein,  L.,  273. 

Gumplowicz,    A.,    410. 

Giinzburg,  C.  S.,  33. 

Gutmann,  M.,  97,  112,  170,  171, 
175,  177,  199. 


INDEX 


571 


Haarbleicher,  M.  M.,  109. 

Hagigrapha,  readings  from,  as 
haftara,  426. 

Haliva,  A.,  139. 

Hainan-beating,  discontinued,  51. 

Hamburg  Temple,  41  ff.,  102  ff.; 
inadequacy  of  reforms  of, 
45 ;  inconsistencies  in  Prayer- 
Book,  46,  50,  113  ff.;  fif- 
tieth anniversary,  406  n. 

Ham-meassef,  10. 

Hampstead  Sabbath  Afternoon 
Services,  145,  538. 

Harby,  Isaac,  463. 

Hardenberg,  Prussian  Prime 
Minister  and  Jews,  31,  32. 

Harris,  Isidore,  540. 

Harrison,  L.,   506,  507. 

Har  Sinai  congregation,  Balti- 
more, 468,  469,  488,  504. 

Hartog,  P.  J.,  555. 

Haskalah  movement,   563   n. 

Hebrew  as  language  of  service, 
214;  advisability  of  reten- 
tion as  language  of  service, 
233  ff . ;  as  symbol  of  nation- 
alism, 240  n. 

Hebrew  Union  CoUege,  491,  511. 

Hecht,  S.,  502. 

Heidenheim,  P.,  202. 

Heilbronn,  P.,  321. 

Heller,  M.,  506,  507. 

Henry  A.  Lindo,  547  n.,  556. 

Hep-hep  cry,  36,  148. 

Herman,  S.,  411. 

Herxheimer,  S.,  85,  95,  199,  202, 
232,  263,  273,  404,  406,  411; 
on  Sabbath  observance,  219; 
on  vernacular  as  language 
of  prayer,  243 ;  on  Messian- 
ic question,  252;  on  Sab- 
bath, 286;  on  religious  edu- 
cation, 420. 


Herz,  Max,  555. 

Herzfeld,  L.,  202,  215,  218,  232, 
263,  273;  on  Hebrew  in  the 
service,  239;  Torah  reading 
should  be  in  Hebrew,  245; 
on  Messianic  question,  252; 
on  Sabbath  question,  286. 

Hess,  M.,  52,  85,  169,  170,  192, 
199,  202,  206,  208,  232,  273, 
299,  343,  346;  invokes  gov- 
ernment aid  to  enforce  re- 
forms, 52;  on  transfer  of 
Sabbath  to  Sunday,  296;  on 
synod,  338  n.;  advocates  in- 
termarriage, 211;  on  cir- 
cumcision, 218 ;  repudiates 
belief  in  personal  Messiah, 
248;  on  transfer  of  Sabbath 
to  Sunday,  296;  on  synod, 
338  n. 

Hess,  Moses,  150. 

Heymann,  Carl,  321,  338,  339. 

Hildesheimer,  L,  513. 

Hirsch,  Emil  G.,  501,  502,  504, 
507. 

Hirsch,  S.  E.,  68  ff.,  184,  186, 
532;  conception  of  Judaism, 
69;  protest  against  Bruns- 
wick Conference,  229;  on 
authority  of  Talmud  and 
Shulchan  Aruk,  228  n.,  398 
n.;  leader  of  neo -orthodoxy, 
403;  criticism  of  reform, 
406  n. ;  opposition  to  Leip- 
zig Synod,  414;  and  Law  of 
Withdrawal,  514;  stand- 
point of  515  n. 

Hirsch,  Samuel,  170,  184,  186, 
202,  204,  232,  343,  346,  475, 
485;  on  creed,  208;  on  Sab- 
bath observance,  218;  de- 
fense of  Brunswick  Confer- 
ence, 222,  225;  on  Hebrew 


572 


INDEX 


in  the  service,  238;  reading 
from  the  Torah  should  be 
in  Hebrew,  245;  on  Messi- 
anic question,  250;  on  Sab- 
bath question,  276;  on 
transfer  of  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day, 292,  505;  on  ceremoni- 
al law,  486. 

Hirschberg,   S.,  507. 

Hirschel,  S.,  127,  131,  138,   143. 

Hochstadter,  J.,  404,  406. 

Holdheira,  S.,  59,  85,  88  ff.,  102, 
112,  116,  168,  202,  211,  215, 
218,  232,  262,  273,  299,  304, 
305,  343,  346,  361,  365,  387, 
435,  458;  on  Mendelssohn,  13, 
on  revelation,  13,  180  n.;  on 
necessity  for  reform,  61, 
204;  on  tradition,  89,  91; 
on  significance  of  marriage, 
90;  on  nationalism,  90;  on 
intermarriage,  90;  on  Sun- 
day service,  90 ;  on  Hamburg 
Temple  Prayer-Book,  117;  on 
circumcision,  189,  192,  392; 
on  Talmud,  43  n.,  89,  204; 
on  creed,  208,  363;  on  re- 
ligious and  political  ele- 
ments in  Judaism,  212,  247, 
249,  331  n.,  389;  on  Sab- 
bath, 219;  defense  of  Bruns- 
wick Conference,  222;  on 
Hebrew  in  the  service,  239; 
on  vernacular  as  language 
of  prayer,  239;  reading 
from  the  Torah  should  be 
in  Hebrew,  246;  on  Messi- 
anic question,  249;  on  abo- 
lition of  prayers  for  resti- 
tution of  sacrifices,  255; 
Judaism  has  no  sacraments, 
257;  the  synagogue  is  holy 


as  the  temple  of  Jerusalem, 
259;  on  transfer  of  Sabbath 
to  Sunday,  285,  292  ff.,  390; 
on  Sabbath  question,  286, 
287  ff.;  criticism  of  Bres- 
lau  Conference,  295  n.,  312; 
on  reform  of  marriage  laws, 
307;  on  ceremonial  legisla- 
tion, 333  n.,  390;  on  synod, 
331,  340;  on  worship  with 
uncovered  head,  350  n. ;  on 
position  of  woman,  354  n.; 
on  liturgy,  357;  on  univer- 
salism,  357;  on  the  eternal 
and  transitory  elements  in 
Judaism,  358;  on  stand- 
point of  reform  Judaism, 
360;  on  mission  of  Judaism, 
389;  on  principles  of  Juda- 
ism, 389;  on  abolition  of 
second  days  of  the  holidays, 
391. 

Holidays,  second  days  of,  abo- 
lition of,  131,  134,  302-3, 
467,  509. 

Holland,  Keform  in,  12. 

Homberg,  Herz.  10  n. 

Honigmann,  D.,  319  n.,  411. 

Horvitz,  L.,  184. 

Huebsch,  A.,  498. 

Hungary,  Reform  in,  379  ff. 

Hurwitz,  Phineas,  381. 

Hyamson,  M.,  548  n. 

Iliowizi,  H.,  502. 

Immortality,  Doctrine  of,  489, 
492. 

Individualism  and  reform,  333  ff. 

Intermarriage,  90,  222;  French 
synhedrin  on,  29;  at  Bruns- 
wick Conference,  211;  at 
Augsburg  Synod,  446. 


INDEX 


573 


Isidor  L.,  refusal  to  administer 
oath  more  Judaico,  216. 

Israel,  the  priest  people,  8,  352, 
489,  491. 

Itzig,  Isaac  Daniel,  18. 

Jacob,  Lionel,  555. 

Jacobi,  Joel,  76. 

Jacobson,  Israel,  originator  of 
reform  movement,  19  ff.,  320, 
529;  founds  schools,  21; 
establishes  first  reform  tem- 
ple, 21;  confession  of  faith, 
23  n. 

Jaffe,  Moses  Jacob,  46. 

Jargon,  the  result  of  ghetto 
conditions,  5,  31. 

Jastrow,  M.,  498. 

Jechiel  ben  Asher,  12  n. 

Jellinek,  A.,  445. 

Jessel,  A.  H.,   551. 

Jewish  Religious  Union,  146, 
544  ff. 

Jews  and  environment  3-4;  a  re- 
ligious community,  not  a 
nation,  7-8;  patriotism  of, 
211;  regard  land  of  birth 
or  adoption  as  fatherland, 
30,  31,  55,  212,  213;  citi- 
zenship of  in  France,  26,  in 
Prussia,  31,  in  Bavaria,  55, 
in  England,  124  n. ;  religion 
the  bond  of  union  among, 
411. 

Joel,  M.,  321,  404,  406,  411,  423, 
424,  430 ;  on  prayers,  415  n. 

Johlson,  J.,  150. 

Jolowicz,  J.,  202,  218,  232,  273, 
346;  reading  from  the  Tor- 
ah  should  be  in  the  vernac- 
ular, 245;  on  Sabbath  ques- 
tion, 286. 

Jonas,  E.  J.,  111. 


Joseph  II,  of  Austria,  Tolera- 
tion Edict,  10. 

Joseph  Morris,  145,  538,  540  n., 
541,  545,  548,  551,  554,  555. 

Josephthal,  G.,  411,  434. 

Jost,  I.  M.,  232,  263. 

Judaism,  Babylonian  influence 
on,  3;  Persian  influence  on, 
3;  Greek  influence  on,  4; 
Arabic  influence  on,  4; 
Christian  influence  on,  4; 
mission  of,  6,  489,  497,  510, 
530,  543;  a  universal  re- 
ligion, 6;  development  in, 
7,  16,  37,  41,  63,  66,  68,  176, 
179;  a  view  of  life,  58;  and 
free  thought,  78,  84  ff.;  per- 
manent element  in,  172; 
dogmas  in,  209;  eternal  and 
transitory  elements,  358 ; 
and  the  modern  state,  441 
ff . ;  and  missionary  efforts, 
499;  relation  to  other  faiths, 
517. 

Kahn,  Joseph,  85,  202,  219,  232, 
261,  273,  277,  281 ;  on  Messi- 
anic question,  253. 

Kahn,  Zadoc,  559. 

Karaism,  65,  98. 

Karo,  Joseph,  5  n. 

Karpeles,  G.,  in  defense  of  or- 
gan in  the  synagogue,  258 
n.,  519,  523  n. 

Kayserling,  M.,  3,  404,  411. 

Keneseth  Israel  Congregation, 
Philadelphia,  468,  471,  504. 

King,  J.,  125. 

Klein,  J.,  202. 

Kley,  Eduard,  33,  42  ff.,  320. 

Kohler,  K.,  210  n.,  502,  504  n. 

Kohn,  A.,  93,  112,  199. 

Kohn,  R,  46. 


574 


INDEX 


Kohner,  M.,  411,  434. 
Kol  Nidre,  abolition  of,  217. 
Kompert,  L.,  434. 
Krauskopf,  J.,  505,  507. 
Krochmal,  N.,  41. 

Laity  and  clergy,  distinction 
un-Jewish,  238,  344,  400; 
Geiger  on,  274. 

Landau,  E.,  14. 

Landau,  W.,  258  n.,  411,  430. 

Landsberg,  M.,  502. 

Lasker,  E.,  514. 

Lassen,  E.,  410. 

Law,  Oral,  authority  of,  6,  137, 
142,  143. 

Law,  Written,  authority  of,  6. 

Lazarus,  Michael,  463. 

Lazarus,  Moritz,  411,  412,  423, 
430,  433,  434,  445,  511,  512; 
on  reform,  416;  on  author- 
ity, 418-9;  on  religious  the- 
ory and  practice,  512  n. ;  on 
progress  in  Judaism,  526  n. 

Leeser,  Isaac,  471. 

Lehmann,  Emil,  411,  412,  458  n.; 
on  intermarriage,  446. 

Lehren,  H.,  341. 

Leipzig  Eeform  Temple,  49. 

Leipzig  Synod,  340  n.,  398-432; 
platform  of,  413 ;  purpose 
of,  418;  on  religious  educa- 
tion, 419  ff . ;  on  liturgy,  425. 

Lesser,  L.,  321,  326,  339,  347. 

Levi,  B.,  85,  184,  201  n.,  404. 

Levin,  H.,  11,  59. 

Levin,  M.,  364. 

Levinstein,  G.,  522,  523. 

Levy,  A.,  139. 

Levy,  J.,   139. 

Levy,  M.,  273. 

Lewis,  H.  S.,  555,  556. 


Liberal  Society  for  the  Affairs 
of  the  Jewish  Community 
(Berlin),  519;  (Cologne), 
527  n. 

Lilienblum,  M.  L.,  563. 

Lilienthal,  M.,  201  n.,  470,  475; 
on  reform,  476. 

Liturgy,  a  growth,  63;  reform 
of,  126,  133,  136,  193,  214 
ff.,  232  ff.,  405,  424  ff.,  466, 
473,  483,  529,  539. 

Loewe,  Joel,  10  n. 

London,  Jews  in,  122,  123. 

Lovy,  L.,  273,  286. 

Low,  L.,  34,  381,  383,  410,  423, 
430,  438;  on  organ  in  the 
synagogue,  258  n. ;  on  re- 
form, 417. 

Lb'wengard,  J.,   259,   273. 

Lowenstein,  J.,  185. 

Lowi,  I.,  34,   105. 

Lowy,  A.,  540. 

Luzzato,  S.  D.,  41,  170,  184,  186. 

Maas,  S.,  164. 

Macaulay,  Lord,  125. 

Magnus,  Katie,  541  n. 

Mahamad,  123,  125,  126. 

Maier,  J.,  99,  112,  199,  202,  214, 
215,  218,  232,  263;  on  au- 
thority, 85;  defends  Bruns- 
wick Conference,  222,  223 
ff. ;  on  Hebrew  in  the  serv- 
ice, 240,  244;  on  vernacular 
as  the  language  of  prayer, 
240;  on  Messianic  question, 
251;  on  celebration  of  Sim- 
chat  Torah,  257. 

Maimonides  quoted,  88,  94,  95. 

Manchester  Reform  Congrega- 
tion, 127,  145. 

Mannheim,      fourth      rabbinical 


INDEX 


0(0 


conference  not  convened, 
314. 

Mannheimer,  I.  N.,  33,  103,  112, 
170,  184,  186;  on  Hamburg 
Temple  Prayer-Book,  118 ; 
on  return  to  Palestine,  118 ; 
on  sacrifices,  118;  on  cir- 
cumcision, 187. 

Marcus,  S.,  410. 

Margojis,   M.   L.,   209   n. 

Marks,  D.  W.,  129  n.,  136,  143, 
217  n.,  540;  on  authority 
of  oral  law,  137,  142, 

Marriage  Laws,  90;  revision  of, 
218,  262,  307,  435  ff.,  489, 
490  n. 

Maskilim,  107  n. 

May  weddings,  superstition,  439. 

Maybaum,  S.,  523,  528. 

Mayer,  J.,  212,  404. 

Meass'fim,  10. 

Mecklenburg,  J.,   185. 

Meldola,  D.,  127,  131,  139. 

Meldola,  H.  H.,  127. 

Memorial  Service,  427. 

Mendelssohn,  Moses  and  reform, 
12-14;  on  dogma  in  Judaism, 
209  n.,  333;  on  ceremonial 
law,  13 ;  German  sermons,  23. 

Merzbacher,  L.,  469,  497. 

Messiah,  Keform  Judaism  on,  8, 
115,  117,  163,  168,  181,  214, 
246  ff.,  328,  331,  470,  472, 
489,  492,  497;  prayers  for, 
abolished,  45,  105,  113,,  175- 
6,  370. 

Meyerbeer,  33. 

Mielziner,    M.,   501,   502. 

Misheberak,  abolition  of,  126, 
194. 

Mitzwot,  Sale  of,  discontinued, 
15,  51,  106,  126,  133  n.,  509. 

Mocatta,   A.,   136. 


Mocatta,  F.  D.,  541  n. 
Mocatta,  M.,   136,  141. 
Mohammed    and    Judaism,    64. 
Moise,  A.,   464. 
Montagu,   Lily   H.,   545,  547. 
Montagu,  S.,  541  n.,  550. 
Montefiore,    C.    G.,    416    n.,    540, 

541  n.,  544  n.,  545,  547,  553, 

555. 

Montefiore,  Moses,  141,  142,  143. 
Mordecai,  I.,  463. 
Mosaites,  179. 
Moser,  M.,  38. 
Moses,  A.,  502. 
Mourning    customs,    reform    of, 

306-7. 
Munk,  C.,  411. 

Napoleon  I  and  the  Jews,  27  ff.; 
and  French  Synhedrin,  30  ff. 

Nathan,  M.  N.,  411. 

Nationalism,  Jewish,  Reform 
Judaism  on,  7,  55. 

Neo-orthodoxy,  403,  536. 

Neo -Persian  influence  on  Juda- 
ism, 4. 

Neumann,  S.,  379. 

Nuremberg,  synod  of,  334. 

Oath,  more  Judaico,  nature  of, 
215;  abolition  of,  216. 

Oral  Law,  authority  of,  6,  137, 
138,  143;  inviolability  of, 
from  standpoint  of  rabbini- 
cal Judaism,  81-2. 

Organ  introduced,  21,  45,  49,  56, 
145,  366,  428,  467,  509,  527, 
558;  opinions  pro  and  con, 
258  n.;  permissibility  of, 
214,  525  n.,  528. 

Orthodoxy  opposes  modern  learn- 
ing, 10,  380,  395  n.;  op- 
poses civil  emancipation, 


576 


INDEX 


10  n.,  380;  opposes  preach- 
ing in  the  vernacular,  23, 
S5;  opposes  prayers  in  the 
vernacular,  32;  on  immuta- 
bility of  the  law,  227,  513; 
on  authority  of  the  oral  law, 
228  n.;  on  authority  of  the 
Shulchan  Aruk,  69,  155,  159, 
228  n.;  considers  Judaism 
a  closed  chapter,  229,  458. 
Oser  Baruch  ben  Meir,  46. 

Palestine,  return  to,  repudiated 
by  Reform  Judaism,  7,  30, 
113,  115,  163,  168,  370,  492, 
498,  530,  531,  550,  556. 

Persian  influence  on  Judaism,  4. 

Pesth,  reform  in  384,  387  ff. 

Pharisees,  the  party  of  prog- 
ress, 65. 

Philadelphia,  rabbinical  confer- 
ence, 488,  .  501 ;  reform  in, 
471. 

Philanthropin,  19,  149,  150. 

Philippson,  G.,  404,  406. 

Philippson,  L.,  59,  112,  200,  202, 
211,  232,  262,  263,  273,  304, 
305,  343,  346,  356,  383,  404, 
406,  411,  418,  423,  424,  518; 
on- Talmud,  43  n. ;  on  neces- 
sity for  reform,  62 ;  criticism 
of  Brunswick  Conference, 
220;  on  Hebrew  in  the  serv- 
ice, 238,  241 ;  Judaism  a  reli- 
gion, Jews  not  a  nation, 
241;  on  Messianic  question, 
254;  on  celebration  of  Sim- 
chat  Torah,  257;  on  organ 
in  the  synagogue,  258  n.;  on 
transfer  of  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day, 297;  on  Sunday  serv- 
ice, 297  n.,  299;  advocates 


synod,  401;  formulated  prin- 
ciples of  Leipzig  synod,  412. 

Phillips,  A.,  463. 

Philo,  4,  241. 

Pillitz,   D.,   381. 

Pittsburg  Rabbinical  Conference, 
491,  501,  505. 

Piyyutim,  abolition  of,  12,  56. 
118,  214,  427,  558. 

Political  element  in  Judaism 
repudiated  by  reform,  246  ff. 

Poznanski,  G.,  466,  467,  469,  470. 

Prague,  reform  in,  56. 

Prayer-book,  Hamburg  Temple, 
102  ff. ;  West  London  syna- 
gogue, 136  ff.;  Berlin  Re- 
form Congregation,  356, 
365 ;  individual  prayer-books, 
404  n.,  425  n.,  498;  Union 
Prayer-book,  493,  499;  Jew- 
ish Religious  Union,  556. 

Priestly  benediction,  347,  351. 

Principles,  Declaration  of,  at 
Philadelphia  conference,  488 ; 
at  Pittsburg  conference,  491. 

Proselytes,  circumcision  of,  192, 
500  ff. 

Purim,  of  Babylonian  origin,  3. 

Prussia,  Jews  in,  Edict  of  1812, 
their  magna  charta,  31,  106; 
Judaism  a  tolerated  religion, 
39  n. ;  ordinances  concern- 
ing Jews,  318  n. 

Qaddish  in  German,  52;  in  He- 
brew, 136;  originally  in  the 
vernacular,  237. 

Rabbi,  a  casuist  from  stand- 
point of  rabbinical  Juda- 
ism, 25,  79;  status  of,  in 
Prussia,  36,  37;  and  free- 


INDEX 


577 


dom  of  thought,  77  ff.;  and 
scientific  research,  78;  and 
preacher,  79;  modern  rabbi, 
156,  157,  in  Judaism,  344; 
vs.  priest,  353. 

Rabbinical  Judaism,  distinguish- 
ing principles  of,  6-9 ;  stand- 
point of,  25,  43,  55,  69,  70, 
77,  78,  81,  332,  380;  an  es- 
oteric product,  69  ff . ;  not 
in  accord  with  modernity, 
326,  327. 

Rabbinical  juris  diction,  ceases 
\vith  emancipation  of  Jews, 
32,  217. 

Rapaport,  S.  L.,  41,  184,  188. 

Raphall,  M.,  470. 

Rashi,  38  n. 

Rebenstein,  A.,  321,  322  n.,  330, 
339,  345,  349,  435;  on  re- 
form, 322;  on  synod,  336  n. 

Reform  Judaism,  distinguishing 
principles  of,  6-9,  44,  60,  120, 
178-80,  536;  on  ceremonial 
law,  6,  7,  14,  333,  473;  on 
sacrifices,  8,  352;  on  Aaronic 
priesthood,  8,  352 ;  on  dis- 
persion of  Jews,  8,  352;  on 
Messianic  question,  8,  115, 
246  ff.,  352,  353;  on  tradi- 
tion, 7,  388,  415  n.;  on  re- 
turn to  Palestine,  7,  352 ; 
on  nationalism,  7-8,  55,  120, 
356,  440,  536;  a  re-interpre- 
tation of  Jewish  life,  9,  388, 
537,  564;  basis  of,  63,  n6; 
justification  for,  63,  151-2 ;  a 
reconciliation  with  modern 
life,  70 ;  purpose  of,  71 ;  in- 
compatible with  political 
Zionism,  213,  246,  247  n., 
441 ;  separates  religious  and 
political  elements,  213;  on 
37 


status  of  woman,  260;  on 
individual  holiness  and  free- 
dom, 333 ;  and  individual- 
ism, 333-4;  program  of  as 
contrasted  with  rabbinism, 
352-3;  on  revelation,  389;  a 
positive  movement,  415  n.; 
on  authority  of  Talmud,  498. 

Reformers,  earliest,  unequal  to 
the  task,  45;  second  genera- 
tion of,  57  ff. ;  program  of, 
63. 

Reggio,  I.   S.,  41. 

Reinach,  T.,  562. 

Reiss,    M.,    232,    236. 

Religious  Opinions  Relief  Bill, 
144. 

Resurrection,  Bodily,  113,  464, 
470,  489,  492,  498. 

Riesser,  G.,  46,  75,  principle  of, 
110  n.,  163,  169;  discounte- 
nanced making  religious  re- 
form a  condition  of  emanci- 
pation, 247,  331  n. 

Riesser,  L.  J.,  46,  174. 

Rosenthal,  S.,  379. 

Rosenstein,  L.,  381. 

Rothschild,  J.,  404. 

Rubenstein,  C.  A.,  507. 

Rubo,  Dr.,  321. 

Saadia  and  Arabic  philosophy,  4. 

Saalschiitz,   J.    L.,   299. 

Sabbath,  Biblical  idea  of,  277, 
278;  Mishnah  and  Talmud 
on,  278;  rest  or  consecra- 
tion? 286. 

Sabbath  boundary,  279. 

Sabbath  observance,  Talmud  and 
codes  on,  275-6;  Breslau 
Conference  on,  300;  Augs- 
burg synod  on,  448;  Pitts- 
burg  conference  on,  505. 


578 


INDEX 


Sabbath-  question,  action  of 
Brunswick  conference,  219 ; 
action  of  Frankfort  confer- 
ence, 261;  at  Breslau  con- 
ference, 275  ff. ;  Central  con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis 
on,  505  ff. 

Sachs,  M.,  170,  320,  341  n.,  366. 

Sacraments,  Judaism  has  no,  257. 

Sacrifices,  restoration  of,  8,  118, 
136;  abolition  of  prayers 
for,  530,  531,  539,  556. 

Sadducees,  the  conservative  par- 
ty, 65. 

Sale,  S.,  506,  507. 

Salomon,  G.,  49,  109,  120,  202, 
206,  211,  215,  232,  262,  263, 
273,  343,  346;  defends  Ham- 
burg Temple  Prayer-book, 
112-4;  on  Sabbath  observ- 
ance, 219;  defends  Bruns- 
wick conference,  225;  on 
Hebrew  in  the  service,  236; 
on  the  vernacular  as  the 
language  of  prayer,  236;  ad- 
vocates triennial  cycle  of 
Torah  readings,  245;  on 
Messianic  question,  250;  on 
abolition  of  prayers  for  the 
restoration  of  the  sacrifices, 
255;  on  Sabbath  question, 
284,  286;  on  transfer  of 
Sabbath  to  Sunday,  296. 

Samfield,  M.,  502. 

Samson,  Herz,  19. 

Samuel  F.  H.  Harvey,  538,  541  n. 

Satanow,  I.,  10  n. 

Schools  modern,  among  Jews,  14, 
17  ff. 

Schott,  L.,  185,  202,  206,  219, 
232,  238,  271. 

Schreiber,  E.,  502. 

Schuler,  P.,  383. 


Schulman,  S.,  507. 

Schwab,  L.,  383,  385. 

Schwarz,  H.,   185. 

Science  of  Judaism,  38  ff. 

Science  and  religion,  reconilia- 
tion  of,  422. 

Seesen  Jewish  school,  19,  20; 
first  reform  temple,  21. 

Seligman,  C.,   532,  537. 

Seminary  Rabbinical,  Wilna  and 
Zhitomir,  107  n.;  Frankfort 
Conference  on,  262;  at  Bres- 
lau Conference,  310;  Bres- 
lau, 271,  310;  Buda  Pesth, 
396 ;  Berlin  Hochschule,  512 ; 
Hildesheimer  seminary,  Ber- 
lin, 513 ;  Hebrew  Union  Col- 
lege, 491,  511. 

Service,  Reforms  in,  20,  35,  45, 
56,  214. 

Shofar,  reform  of  service,  214; 
discontinuance  of  use,  347, 
348. 

Shulchan  Aruk,  narrowing  influ- 
ence, 5;  authority  of,  69, 
155,  159,  332,  398,  453;  on 
position  of  woman,  355 ;  re- 
vision of,  451  ff. 

Shum,  synod  of,  334. 

Silverman,  J.,  506. 

Simchat  Torah,  celebration  of, 
256. 

Simion,   M.,   334,   339,   345,   347. 

Simon,  John,  129  n.,  141. 

Simon,  O.  J.,  541  n.,  542  ff.  555. 

Sinai  Congregation,  Chicago, 
468,  472,  483,  501,  504. 

Singer,  S.,  545,  547,  550,  555. 

Sinzheim,  D.,  28. 

Sobernheim,  L.,  202,  232,  273, 
286. 


INDEX 


579 


Sofer,  Moses,  condemns  reform 
movement,  48;  testament  of, 
48  n. 

Sonneschein,  S.  H.,  506. 

Speyer,  J.  M.,  46. 

Spitz,  M.,  500,  502. 

Stein,  L.,  59,  85,  99,  112,  169, 
171,  173,  174,  193,  194,  199, 
232,  262,  263,  268,  273,  274, 
297  n.,  306,  312,  314,  383; 
composes  Icol  nidre  hymn, 
217  n.;  on  vernacular  as 
language  of  prayer,  237;  on 
Hebrew  in  the  service,  243; 
on  nationalism,  244;  on  per- 
sonal Messiah,  253;  on  re- 
building of  Jerusalem,  253; 
on  return  to  Palestine,  254; 
on  Sabbath  question,  286;  on 
transfer  of  Sabbath  to  Sun- 
day, 296;  advocates  synod, 
401. 

Steinhardt,  J.,  381. 

Steinthal,   H.,  321. 

Stern,  J.  F.,  541,  545,  550. 

Stern,  M.  A.,  160,  162,  164,  169, 
170  ff. 

Stern,  S.,  321,  339,  345,  on  creed, 
209,  347;  on  mission  of 
Judaism  and  the  Jew,  322, 
324  ff.;  on  synod,  334;  on 
theology,  343;  on  dogmas, 
363. 

Sternheim,  E.,  556. 

Sulamith,  first  German  Jewish 
periodical,  21. 

Sulzer,  S.,  103,  410,  450. 

Sunday  service,  90,  194,  298  n., 
346,  359,  367,  370,  387,  504, 
505,  506,  507,  508  n.,  522  ff., 
541,  542,  559. 

Susskind,  L.,  232,  516  n. 

Sutro,  A.,  185. 


Synhedrin,  French,  26  ff.,  211, 
334. 

Synod,  district  synods  in  Bava- 
ria (1835),  55;  necessity  for, 
264,  265,  315;  advocated  by 
Berlin  Reform  Association, 
332  ff.,  334;  among  Jews, 
334;  of  Leipzig,  340  n.,  398 
ff. ;  of  Augsburg,  340  n., 
432  ff.;  Frankfort  Confer- 
ence on,  345;  advocated  by 
Breslau  "  Friends  of  Re- 
form," 373;  authority  of, 
400,  418;  relation  to  rabbin- 
ical conferences,  424-5;  steps 
toward  in  United  States,  459. 

Szanto,  S.,  410,  434;  on  Biblical 
criticism,  421;  on  celebra- 
tion of  channukahj  451;  on 
revision  of  Shulchan  Arttk, 
452. 

Szold,  B.,  498. 

Tallith,  discarded,  347. 

Talmud,  attitude  of  reformers 
towards,  43,  44,  494;  author- 
ity of,  81  ff.,  151,  160,  163, 
168,  172,  204,  206,  494-5. 

Talmudism  a  phase  of  Judaism, 
65,  278. 

Talmud-Karaites,   65. 

Tarfon,  Rabbi,  99. 

Targum,  purpose  of,  256. 

Teller,  Probst,  15-17. 

Tiktin,  G.,  229,  377. 

Tiktin,  S.  A.,  72  ff.;  conception 
of  Judaism,  77;  defends 
authority  of  Talmud,  77-80, 
81. 

Tisha  b'ab,  teaching  of  Reform 
Judaism  concerning,  353  n. 

Toleration  Edict,  10,  18. 


580 


INDEX 


Torah  reading,  245  ff.,  246  n., 
426;  triennial  cycle,  256, 
426  n. ;  aufrufen  abolished, 
509. 

Traub,  H.,  185. 

Treuenfels,  A.,   232. 

Triennial  Cycle  of  Torah  read- 
ings, 256. 

Trier,  S.  A.,  150,  168,  341;  on 
circumcision,  182  ff. ;  pro- 
tests against  Brunswick  Con- 
ference, 229. 

Tsarphati  letters,  30,  108. 

Ullmann,  S.,  184. 
Ulmann,  S.,  558. 
Uncovered  head,  worship  with, 

347,   350   ff.,  387,   466,   509, 

542. 
Union      of      American      Hebrew 

Congregations,    491,   510. 
Union   Israelite  Liberale,   559. 
Union     of     Liberal     Kabbis     of 

Germany,  532. 
Union   Prayer-book,    404   n.,   425 

n.,    493,   499. 
Usha,  synod  of,  334. 

Veit,  M.,  321. 

Vernacular,  prayers  in,  14,  21, 
22,  32,  40,  45,  51,  56,  106, 
150,  235  ff.,  347,  387,  462, 
472,  489,  498,  509,  521,  547, 
556,  559;  preaching  in,  12, 
19,  22,  23  ff.,  36,  42,  72, 
103,  104,  106,  127,  130,  133, 
145,  150,  153,  194,  366,  383, 
386  n.,  463<,  558. 

Vienna,  Congress  of  and  Jews, 
148. 

Vienna   reform    program,    103. 

Vogelstein,  H.,  438,  444,  530, 
532,  534. 


Voorsanger,  J.,  468  n.,  505,  506. 

Wagner,  H.,  199,  232,  273;  edit- 
ed reform  paper,  242  n. ;  on 
Messianic  question,  252;  on 
Sabbath  question,  286. 

Warendorff,  G.,  110. 

Wassermann,  M.,  85,  185,  199; 
on  revision  of  Shulchan 
Aruk,  417,  452. 

Wechsler,  A.,   184. 

Wechsler,  B.,  85,  92,  199,  202, 
219,  232,  261,  273,  277,  304, 
312,  404,  411,  430,  434,  447 ; 
on  tradition,  92;  on  free- 
dom of  research,  93 ;  on  Tor- 
ah reading,  245 ;  on  organ  in 
the  synagogue,  258  n. ;  on 
Sabbath  question,  286;  on 
chalitzah,  417. 

Weiss,  B.,  535  n. 

Welamalshinim,  elimination  of, 
50;  change  of,  530. 

Wertheim,  A.,   434. 

Wertheimer,  Joseph  von,  410, 
412,  434,  445. 

Wessely,  H.,  10,  11,  380. 

West  London  Synagogue  of 
British  Jews,  130  ff.,  537, 
551  ff. 

Westphalia,  reform  in,  20  ff., 
529  ff. 

Wetzlar,  M.,  184. 

Weyl,  M.  S.,  35. 

Wiener,  A.,  404,  406,  411,  416, 
434,  448,  512  n.;  on  organ 
in  the  synagogue,  258  n. ; 
on  dietary  laws  416  n. ;  on 
reform,  417. 

Wilna,  reform  in   (1840),  106. 

Wise,  Isaac  M.,  433  n.,  468  n., 
475,  477,  498;  introduced 
family  pews,  355  n. ;  on  syn- 


INDEX 


581 


od,  459;  reforms  in  Albany, 
469;  repudiates  belief  in 
bodily  resurrection,  470;  as 
organizer,  477;  on  reform, 
478;  founder  of  Central 
Conference  of  American 
Eabbis,  493;  repudiates  au- 
thority of  Talmud,  495;  on 
Zionism,  496;  on  circumci- 
sion of  proselytes,  502;  in- 
stitutes late  Friday  evening 
services,  503;  founder  of 
Union  of  American  Hebrew 
Congregations  and  Hebrew 
Union  College,  510-11. 

Wissenschaftliche  Zeitschrift  fur 
jiidische  Theologie,  67,  157. 

Withdrawal,  Law  of,  514. 

Wolf,  A.,  555. 

Wolf,  J.,  24. 

Wolfenbiittel   Jewish   School,   19. 

Wolff,  A.  A.,  184. 

Wolfson,  M.,  109. 

Wolfsohn,  A.,  21. 

Wollner,  Dr.,  414. 


Woman,  status  of,  reform  Juda- 
ism on,  260,  347,  353  ff.,  437, 
509  n.,  546,  553;  resolutions 
of  Breslau  Conference,  308- 
9;  abolition  of  woman's 
gallery,  355,  509. 

Yequm  Purqan  abolished,  136, 
158,  193. 

Zion  College   Association,   510. 

Zionism  incompatible  with  Re- 
form Judaism,  213,  246,  247 
n.,  441,  492;  and  Hebrew 
language,  240  n. ;  Central 
Conference  of  American 
Eabbis  on,  496;  in  Ger- 
many, 536. 

Zipser,  M.,  381. 

Zunz,  L.,  188,  321;  on  preaching 
in  vernacular,  24,  38;  re- 
form preacher  in  Berlin,  33; 
and  science  of  Judaism,  38 
ff.;  on  development  in  Juda- 
ism, 39,  41;  on  reform,  40 
ff.;  on  circumcision,  185. 


JUDAISM  ^REEDAND 

By  the 
REV.  MORRIS  JOSEPH 

Cloth,  Crown  8vo,  $1.60  net 
CONTENTS 

PREFACE  AND  INTRODUCTION 

Hebrew    Authorities— Religion   in  General— The   Bible — Other    Source!  of 

Judaism. 

BELIEFS 

Faith  and  Reason— The  Existence  of  God— the  Nature  of  God— The  Divine 
in  Man— Man  is  Free— God  and  Man— The  Mystery  of  Pain— The  Highest 
Service— The  Future  Life— Israel's  Mission. 

CEREMONIAL 

The  Dietary  Laws  and  Jewish  Separatism— The  Historic  Consciousness— The 
Holy  Days— The  Sabbath— Passover— Pentecost— Tabernacles— New  Moon 
and  New  Year— The  Day  of  Atonement— The  Minor  Fasts  and  Feasts— Pub- 
lic Worship— The  Synagogue  and  its  Services— The  Jewish  Calendar. 

MORAL  DUTIES 

Duties  toward  God — Humility  and  Kindred  Virtues— Prayer— Sincerity — 
Duties  to  Self— The  Physical,  the  Intellectual  and  the  Spiritual  Life— Duties 
to  Others— The  Golden  Rule— The  Family— Integrity— Truthfulness  and  Kin- 
dred Virtues— Benevolence— Duties  to  the  State— Duties  to  the  Religious 
Community. 

Jewish  Chronicle — "A  good,  a  convincing  and  a  serviceable 
book.  ...  A  treatise  which  may  be  read  with  delight  by  the  adult, 
and  may  also  serve  as  a  school  book  for  the  young.  .  .  .  Mr.  Joseph 
writes  with  fervor  of  manner  as  well  as  with  sobriety  of  method, 
and  Judaism  exerts  a  new  fascination  in  his  pages— at  once  full  as  they 
are  of  information  and  of  charm.  Never  before  has  Mr.  Joseph  so 
fully  revealed  both  the  extent  of  his  knowledge  and  the  graces  of  his 
style.  English  Jews  will  be  deeply  grateful  to  him." 

Jewish  World— -"A  great  work  on  the  Jewish  Religion,  not  a 
mere  booklet,  or  essay,  not  even  an  ordinary  handbook,  but  a  com- 
prehensive and  satisfying  exposition  of  its  principles  and  practises. 
To  say  that  this  treatise  fills  a  gap  in  our  scanty  bibliography  of 
Anglo- Judaica  would  express  inadequately  the  value  of  the  work.  It 
is  a  contribution  to  Jewish  literature  which  proves  to  be  indispensable. 
...  A  work  which  appeals  at  one  and  the  same  time  to  the  scholar 
and  to  the  uninformed,  to  adults  and  to  young  people." 

Published  by 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

SIXTY-FOUR  AND  SIXTY-SIX  FIFTH  AVENUE,     NEW  YORK 


By  CLAUDE  G.  MONTEFIORE 

Liberal  Judaism.     An  Essay 

Crown  8vo,  216  pp.,  $1.25. 

Jewish  Chronicle— "Mr .  Montefiore  has  written  so  attractive  and 
forcible  a  book  that  it  must  arrest  general  attention.  .  .  .  The 
book  is  at  once  timely  and  well  conceived." 

Truth  in  Religion  and  Other  Sermons 

Cloth,  12mo.,  ix+286  pp.,  $1.25  net. 

Twenty  sermons  delivered  at  the  services  of  the  Jewish  Religious 
Union  in  London  within  the  last  two  or  three  years. 

The  Bible  for  Home  Reading 

Edited  with  Comments  and  Reflections  for  the  use  of 

Jewish  Parents  and  Children. 

PART  I.    To  the  second  visit  of  Nehemiah  to  Jerusalem. 

PART  II.  Containing  Selections  from  the  Wisdom  Literature, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalter,  together  with  Extracts 
from  the  Apocrypha. 

Each,  Cloth,  12mo.,  $1.25  net. 

THE  BOOK  OF  PSALMS.     35  cents  net 

Jewish  Chronicle— "The  scholarship,  the  spiritual  insight,  the 
attractive  style,  which  distinguished  the  first  part  of  Mr.  Monte- 
fiore's  Bible  for  Home  Reading  are  displayed  in  their  fullest 
development  in  the  second  part,  now  happily  published.  But, 
good  as  the  older  book  was,  the  new  is  even  better.  Mr.  Monte- 
fiore had  indeed  a  great  responsibility.  How  wonderfully  he  has 
risen  to  the  occasion,  how  splendid  a  use  he  has  made  of  the 
opportunity,  we  shall  endeavor  to  show.  But  we  cannot  refrain 
from  saying  that  this  book  is  the  despair  of  a  reviewer.  One 
cannot  hope  to  do  justice  to  such  a  work  when  its  800  pages  are 
full  to  overflowing  of  learning  simply  utilized,  of  moral  truths 
reverently  enunciated,  of  spiritual  possibilities  forcibly  realized, 
while  over  all  there  hovers  a  charm  indefinable,  yet  easily  and 
inevitably  felt  by  any  reader  of  the  book.  We  will,  however,  try 
to  indicate  some  of  the  excellences  of  Mr.  Montefiore's  book,  the 
publication  of  which  is  the  most  important  literary  event  of  re- 
cent years,  so  far  as  the  English-speaking  Jews  are  concerned. 
.  .  .  As  masterly  as  it  is  spiritual,  as  scholarly  as  it  is  attractive." 

Published  by 

THE    MACMILLAN     COMPANY 

SIXTY-FOUR  AND  SIXTY-SIX  FIFTH  AVENUE,     NEW  YORK 


>39(402s) 


YC  30163 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


